Legal Opinion

Tuscaloosa Motor Co. v. Cockrell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 21, 1957No. 6 Div. 182PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMPSON, Justice.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the prerequisites of rescission and restoration necessary to the maintenance of an action for money had and received. The Court of Appeals further held because there was this failure to show a rescission the court was in error in refusing the affirmative charge with hypothesis requested by defendant on Count 2 for money had and received.

There was a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $600. According to the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ex Parte GrimmettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. BishopSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
  3. Southern Loan & Trust Co. v. GissendanerAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
  4. Stanard Tilton Milling Co. v. MixonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
  5. Comer v. FranklinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Central of Georgia Railway Company v. RamseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  2. Tuscaloosa Motor Company v. CockrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
  3. James Talcott, Inc. v. Jack Cole Company, Defendant-Third Party v. Rapistan Incorporated, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
  4. Tuscaloosa Motor Co. v. CockrellAlabama Court of Appeals · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API