Emens v. Stephens
Supreme Court of Alabama
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
- Lowery v. MaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Nelson & Hatch v. DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Lee v. MacOn County BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Davis v. CookSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Riley v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
- Maya Corporation v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Propst v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Wood v. AmosSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Leath v. ListerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.