Legal Opinion

Tennessee Valley Bank v. Clopton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 4, 1929No. 8 Div. 51PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

Rule 46 of Chancery Practice, Code of 1923, vol. 4, p. 920, providing that “an amendment to a bill, or the filing of an amended bill, shall not set aside a decree pro confesso as to any defendant to the original or any other bill, nor shall a decree pro confesso for want of an answer to-an amendment or an amended hill operate as a decree pro confesso on the original or any other amended hill already answered,” is not in conflict with the statutes regulating amendments to bills in equity, Code 1923, §§ 6558-6561, and was not abrogated by Acts 1915, p. .705, the provisions of which were…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kelly v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  2. Staples v. BarretSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  3. Goodwater Warehouse Co. v. StreetSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  4. H. H. Hitt Lumber Co. v. TurnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. MacKe v. MacKeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Standard Contractors Supply Co. v. ScotchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  2. Hurt v. KnoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  3. Ex Parte WaldropSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  4. Ex parte HelblingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
  5. Woods v. Allison Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1952

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

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

Powered by the Exa API