Kling v. Tunstall
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. W. S. Anderson. Tlie facts are stated in tlie .opinion. — Statute of frauds apply to executed, not to executory contracts. — 7 Ala. 161; 51 Ala. 434; 60 Ala. 214; 71 Ala. •202; 82 Ala. 622; 96 Ala. 515; 100 Ala. 430; 105 Ala. .'585. cited Kling r. Tunstall, 109 Ala. 610; tí elf v. Kirkland, 24 Ala. 277.
1Opinion of the CourtDowdell, J.
— The appellee Tunstall. commenced his suit by attachment against D. M. Paxton and John C. Williams, Sr., as partnei'S under’the firm name of D. M. Paxton & Co., otherwise called the American Shingle Manufacturing Company. The attachment was executed by service of writ of garnishment. on the appellant, A. Kling. The garnishee appeared and made answer denying indebtedness. The answer was duly and regularly contested. In making up the issue, it was agreed, as shown by the bill of exceptions, “that any matter that could come under plea of off-set by garnishee be received under the general…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gordon, Rankin & Co. v. TweedySupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Rake's Adm'r v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Gafford v. StearnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Lavender v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Kling v. TunstallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
3Cited by8 opinions
- Vacalis v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- James Supply Co. v. FrostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Phillips-Neely Mercantile Co. v. BanksAlabama Court of Appeals · 1913
- Minchener v. HendersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Harris Transfer & Warehouse Co. v. MoorAlabama Court of Appeals · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.