Legal Opinion
Wilson v. Windham
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided April 16, 1925No. 6 Div. 377PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The suit was for the destruction of a mortgage lien on crops. The defense was pleaded in short by consent, with leave to give in evidence the material facts. The general affirmative charge for defendant was given. This is the third appeal. Wilson v. Windham, 206 Ala. 427, 90 So. 791; Windham v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 330, 98 So. 15.
There is conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the Colemans kept separate the cotton picked from the respective tenancies. J. W. Coleman testified that their cotton and corn were placed in separate piles; the witnesses Caldwell and Murphy gave evidence subject to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Jones v. BellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Moore v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. MandelbaumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- McCarthy v. NicrosiSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- The Industrial Development Board of the Town of Section, Alabama v. Fuqua Industries, Inc., the Industrial Development Board of the City of Fort Payne, Alabama v. Fuqua Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- National Life Ins. Co. of United States of America v. ReedySupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Spencer v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Industrial Development Board v. Fuqua Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.