Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Middleton v. St. Louis S. F. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 18, 1934No. 1 Div. 775PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, Justice.

The assignment of errors is sufficiently definite as to present for review the rulings on demurrers to the bill as filed and as finally amended. It is not within the announcement contained in Williams v. Coosa Manufacturing Co., 138 Ala. 673, 33 So. 1015; Craig & Co. v. Pierson Lumber Co., 169 Ala. 548, 53 So. 803; Howell v. Smith, 206 Ala. 646, 91 So. 496; Hale v. Cox, 222 Ala. 136, 131 So. 233.

It is established that “private property shall not be taken for, or applied to public use, unless just compensation be first made therefor” to the owner. Sections 23, 235,…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Claflin v. HousemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Jones v. New Orleans & Selma RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  3. Ivy v. HoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  4. Craig & Co. v. Pierson Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1910
  5. New Orleans & Selma Railroad v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Forsyth v. Central Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1940
  2. Folmar v. BrantleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  3. Emens v. StephensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  4. Walker v. JonesAlabama Court of Appeals · 1947
  5. Duke v. Helena-Glendale Ferry Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1942

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API