Legal Opinion

Smith v. Yearwood

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 30, 1916PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Appeal from Cullman Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. R. C. Brickell. Action by Joe Smith, pro ami, against C. C. Yearwood and others, for damages. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The plaintiff, as named in the original summons and caption of the complaint, was “Mrs. Houston Smith, pro ami, Joe Smith.” In count 2 of the original complaint, the plaintiff was named as “Joe Smith,” without naming his next friend. At the trial, by leave of the- court first had and obtained, the plaintiff amended his complaint as follows, to-wit: By amending the caption of the complaint where the same reads, “Mrs. Houston Smith, pro ami, Joe Smith,” to read, instead, “Joe Smith, by his next friend and mother, Mrs. Houston Smith;” and by striking from said complaint counts 1 and 2 and adding…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MarkeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  2. Manistee Mill Co. v. HobdySupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  3. Harris v. Plant & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1858
  4. American Union Telegraph Co. v. DaughterySupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
  5. Ex parte NicrosiSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Crawford v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  2. Upshaw v. EubankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  3. Alabama Power Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  4. Crawford v. MillsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  5. Louisville N. R. Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API