Ex parte Alabama Gold Life Insurance
Supreme Court of Alabama
Before the Supreme Court. The petition of the Alabama Gold Life Insurance Company, praying for a writ of mandamus, directed to the Hon. Huriosco Austill, Chancellor of the Southern Chancery Division, contains the following facts: On the eighth day of March, A. D. 1878, the petitioner and Isaac Eriedman & Co.,- as creditors of David Bear, filed a bill of complaint in the Chancery Court of Butler county against Adolph Greenhut as assignee of David Bear, and also against David…
Read the full summary
Before the Supreme Court. The petition of the Alabama Gold Life Insurance Company, praying for a writ of mandamus, directed to the Hon. Huriosco Austill, Chancellor of the Southern Chancery Division, contains the following facts: On the eighth day of March, A. D. 1878, the petitioner and Isaac Eriedman & Co.,- as creditors of David Bear, filed a bill of complaint in the Chancery Court of Butler county against Adolph Greenhut as assignee of David Bear, and also against David Bear. The bill alleged that the assignee was guilty of fraudulent conduct, and prayed that he might be removed from the…
1Opinion of the Court
STONE, J.—
It is only when a bill in chancery and a suit at law are prosecuted for the same claim, that the plaintiff or claimant can be compelled to elect in which court he will proceed.—Rule of Chancery Practice No. 103. To come within the principle, the two suits must have substantially the same aim and scope. It is not enough that the two suits relate to the same subject-matter, unless the relief sought is, in each case, substantially the same. The suit at law, in the present case, has for its object the reduction of the plaintiff’s entire claim to a judgment, with a view to its collection…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ex Parte Barclay-Hays Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- American Tar Products Co. v. JonesAlabama Court of Appeals · 1920