Goodson v. Liles
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
(after stating the facts as above),
The form of the action, money had and received, was well chosen. It is equitable in nature; and in that character of action the right of the plaintiff, in equity and good conscience, to recover is to be determined upon equitable principles. Hudson v. Scott, 125 Ala. 172, 177, 28 South. 91, among others.
If the plaintiff’s theory of completely ■consummated gift was sustained, then the subject of the gift, so consummated, was not assets of the estate of Thames, and hence Liles individually, not in his representative capacity, was liable in the premises.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ridden v. . ThrallNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Smith v. . Brooklyn Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Campbell v. American Bonding Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Jones v. WeakleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Hudson v. ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Clark v. BridgesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- De Mouy v. JepsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Donovan v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Farish v. HawkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
- Herring v. ElliottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.