Legal Opinion
Eureka Coal Co. v. Louisville N. R. Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided May 2, 1929No. 6 Div. 237PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The general demurrer does not serve the purpose of a special demurrer, in that as against the former all amendments of form that may be added are considered as made. Whiteman v. Taber, 203 Ala. 496, 501, 83 So. 595, Lunsford v. Marx, 214 Ala. 37, 106 So. 336. However, many gx-ounds of demurrer to the bill were thereafter added, not directed however to the different phases of the bill.
The bill is filed in a double aspect, and one phase thereof contained equity. . It is averred that there were contract relations of the parties for maintenance of light wires across complainant’s tracks, and not…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Adler & Co. v. PruittSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Vandiver & Co. v. PollakSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Whiteman v. TaberSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- City of Birmingham v. Louisville N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Huey v. DykesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- George's Radio, Inc. v. Capital Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Quatray v. WickerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1933
- Belcher v. Birmingham Trust National BankDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1968
- Alberts v. American Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- Miller and Company of Birmingham, Inc. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.