Legal Opinion
Graves v. &198tna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided November 11, 1926No. 4 Div. 286PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The pleadings were in short by consent, with the usual leave to give in evidence matter required to be specially pleaded.
The defendants had the right to show the amount due by plaintiff to them at the time suit was brought. Code, §§ 10172, 10180.
“A comaker or surety sued jointly or alone may, with the consent of his comaker or principal, avail himself, by way of sét-off, of a debt or liquidated demand due from the plaintiff at the commencement of the suit to such comaker or principal.” Section 10176, Code of 1923.
The plaintiff’s evidence tended to refute such issue of indebtedness to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Firemen's Insurance v. McMillanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Dickson v. Alabama MacHinery & Supply Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1921
- Myatts & Moore v. BellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1867
- Stull v. Daniel MacH. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Lowther v. ChappellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Benson Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Benefit Ass'n Ry. Employees v. BraySupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Union Indemnity Co. v. GoodmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Craft v. Standard Accident Ins. Co.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1928
- Jacksonville Paper Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.