Legal Opinion

Emens v. Stephens

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 7, 1937No. 6 Div. 974PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, Justice.

This appeal is from a decree overruling demurrers to a cross-bill.

The rules that have long prevailed as to the purpose and effect of a cross-bill are in substance as follows:(1) It is defensive matter to the original bill in whole or in part — or to modify the .relief the complainant obtains. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Holmes et al., 230 Ala. 332, 160 So. 768; Denicke et al. v. Davitt, 223 Ala. 69, 134 So. 794; Behan et al. v. Friedman et al., 216 Ala. 478, 113 So. 538; Whitfield v. Riddle, 78 Ala. 99; Davis v. Cook, 65 Ala. 617; Nelson and Hatch v. Dunn et al., 15 Ala. 501…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Lowery v. MaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Nelson & Hatch v. DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
  3. Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  4. Lee v. MacOn County BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  5. Davis v. CookSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Riley v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  2. Maya Corporation v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
  3. Propst v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
  4. Wood v. AmosSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  5. Leath v. ListerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937

14 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