Legal Opinion

Southside Bank v. Birmingham Truth

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 17, 1930No. 6 Div. 583PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The assignment of errors, among other things, challenges the action of the trial court in permitting amendment to the name of plaintiff employing the words “a corporation.” The complaint was filed October 3, 1928, and the amendment allowed March 25, ‘ 1929.

The statute allowing amendments is section 9513, Code. In Barksdale v. Strickland & Hazard (Ala. Sup.) 124 So. 234, 1 it was declared, “Capacity to sue and corporate existence, if necessary, will be intended, where action is brought in name fairly importing corporate character” (Moore v. Martin & Hoyt Co., 124 Ala. 291, 27 So. 252; Seymour…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  2. Seymour & Sons v. Thomas Harrow Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1886
  3. Hoskins v. HightSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
  4. Fulwider v. JacobSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  5. Geter v. Central Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1907

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Shepherd v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  2. Johnson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API