Ex Parte Barclay-Hays Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.
A motion to require an election under chancery rule 112 can only prevail after the bill of complaint has been fully answered. Roman v. Dimmiek, 123 Ala. 533, 26 South. 233. No answer was filed in the ease at bar when‘the motion for an election was granted. Moreover, this record does not present a ease requiring an election either under chancery rule 112 or section 2451 of the Code of 1907. In either instance the suits must not only be between the same parties but for the same cause.
“It is a general rule that where a • plaintiff is prosecuting an action at law and a suit in equity against a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ex Parte DunlapSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Jones v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Ex parte EdwardsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Keel v. LarkinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Ex parte Alabama Gold Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sessions v. Jack Cole CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
- Bruce v. CollierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Alabama Power Co. v. City of ScottsboroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Shepherd v. Maritime Overseas Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1993
- Ford v. BowdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.