City of Birmingham v. Scott
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
The amendment to the complaint related to the same injury or subject-matter, was not a departure, and was permissible under section 9513 of the Code of 1923. Indeed) the amendment merely added the fact that the notice as required by the statute was given the city before the suit was' brought. Counsel for appellant insists that the amendment should not have been allowed for the reason that the original complaint did not state a cause of action, as an averment that the notice was given was a condition precedent to a recovery, and, this being true, there was nothing upon’which the amendment…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- City of Montgomery v. FergusonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Grambs v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- City of Birmingham v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- City of Birmingham v. CraneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Tuscaloosa v. FairSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Walker County v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- City of Birmingham v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- City of Birmingham v. CoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Pankey v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.