Smith v. Smith
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Cleburne. Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited Smith v. Smith, 102 Ala. 516; Wharton v. Clements, 3 Del. Chan. Rep. 209 ; 8 Amer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Cleburne. Heard before the Hon. S. K. McSpadden. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited Smith v. Smith, 102 Ala. 516; Wharton v. Clements, 3 Del. Chan. Rep. 209 ; 8 Amer. Law Reports, 299 ; Dollins v. Lindsey, 89 Ala. 217; Randle v. Boyd, 73 Ala. 282. — 1. Multifariousness is generally understood to include those cases where a party is brought in as a defendant on a record with a large portion of which, and in the case made by which he has no connection whatever. — Adams v. Jones, 68 Ala. 117 ; 1 Brick. Dig., 719, §§ 1164,' 1166;…
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
— The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion delivered on a former appeal and reported in 102 Ala. 516. On the remandment of the cause, the bill was amended as suggested in that opinion. The present appeal is prosecuted from the ruling of the court, sustaining demurrers to the bill on the ground of a misjoinder of parties defendant, and for multifariousness. The grounds of demurrer were not well taken, and should have been overruled. While one purpose of the mortgage was for the indemnity of the sureties of W. R. L>. Smith, administrator of Charles A. Smith, the complainants…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Larkins v. BiddleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Randle v. BoydSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Bolman v. LohmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Stover v. HerringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Bromberg v. BatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Christian & Craft Grocery Co. v. KlingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902