Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Tennessee Chemical Co. v. Cheatham

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 5, 1928No. 3 Div. 822PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

The contract in question established the relation of principal and agent between the complainant and the Farmers’ Mercantile Company. Bowdoin v. Alabama Chemical Co., 201 Ala. 582, 79 So. 4. Nor did the fact that the Farmers’ Mercantile Company executed its notes to the complainant for a sum covering the price or value of the fertilizer as a guaranty of a compliance with the contract, as per the averment of the bill, and the provisions of the contract, convert said contract into.one of sale and make the relationship of the two companies that of purchaser and seller. Swift & Co. v. Bullard &…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Board of Com'rs v. HurleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
  2. O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  3. Force v. Age-Herald Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  4. Bowdoin v. Alabama Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  5. E. H. Emery & Co. v. American Reprigerator Transit Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1921

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Roan v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
  2. Skipper v. Wright & ColquettAlabama Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Steele v. Hallandale, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
  4. Jefferson Pilot Broadcasting Co. v. Hilary & Hogan, Inc.District Court, M.D. Alabama · 1978
  5. GALACTIC EMPLOYER SERVICES v. McDormanCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2003

5 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