Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided April 27, 1990No. 88-7387Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTjoflat, Chief Judge
I concur in part VII of the majority’s opinion affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of appellee First Alabama Bank against appellant Johnson & Higgins. The remainder of the majority opinion, however, troubles me.
Under the guise of Alabama’s law of fraud, the majority, in affirming the district court’s finding of fraud on the part of appellant First State Insurance Company,1 today announces and applies a new maxim of equity: equity will not suffer a loss to be without a remedy that is extracted from *1072every party to the transaction that resulted in the loss.2 After carefully…
2Cases cited79 opinions
- Barbara J. HENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DUNDEE, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Railroad Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. VoigtSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Hickox v. StoverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.