Legal Opinion

Heady v. Pool

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 16, 1930No. 6 Div. 526PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The counts on which trial was had, and here to be considered, are 2 and 3, for work and labor, 4, under an express contract, and 6, for work and labor and to establish a lien on property therefor. There were no demurrers to counts 2 and 4. The pleas were of the general issue, payment, set-off, and recoupment, and special pleas that the building was not constructed in a workmanlike manner.

There was no error' in overruling demurrers assigned to count 3, in that it was not on express contract, but for work' and labor done. Roobin v. Grindle, 219 Ala. 417, 122 So. 408. For like reason there was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Grimsley v. First Ave. Coal & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  2. Redd Bros. v. ToddSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  3. Bedsole v. PetersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
  4. Gilbert v. Talladega Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  5. Richardson Lumber Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Byrum Hardware Co. v. Jenkins Bldg. Supply Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API