Legal Opinion

Wurtzburger v. Anniston Rolling Mills

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1891PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the City Court of Anniston. Tried before the Hon. B. E. Cassady.

1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.

— This action is for deferred installments of an amount subscribed by Wurtzburger to the capital stock of the Anniston Rolling Mills. The subscription was in writing. The defendant, in addition to the general issue, pleaded that he did not make the contract of subscription laid in the complaint, did not authorize any one to make such subscription for him, and that it was never understood or agreed between plaintiff and himself that he should take or subscribe for stock in said company as alleged; but,that it was agreed between them, at the time he signed the book of subscription for said…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Chambers v. RingstaffSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  2. Pollard v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
  3. Dexter v. OhlanderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
  4. Griel v. LomaxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
  5. Crescent Brewing Co. v. HandleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1890

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Thompson Foundry & Machine Co. v. GlassSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  2. Town of Brewton v. GlassSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
  3. Woodall v. Malone-Harrison Motor Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. Gober Motor Co. v. MorrowSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API