Legal Opinion
Warrior Water Co. v. Long
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided June 28, 1928No. 6 Div. 179PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The trial was had before the judge of the court without a jury and upon an agreed statement of facts. The judgment was for the defendant as probate judge, and plaintiff was taxed with the costs.
The appellant pursued the proper remedy for the redress of his wrongs, if such there were. Ala. Con. C. & I. Co. v. Herzberg, 177 Ala. 248, 59 So. 305; Woco-Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, 213 Ala. 452, 105 So. 214.
The counsel for appellant has stated the question involved, which is found in .subdivision (a) of “Schedule 89, Public Utilities,” p. 427, General Acts 1919. It reads as follows:
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Soon Hing v. CrowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Minot v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Frazier v. State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Lee v. State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- City of St. Petersburg v. Florida Coastal TheatresSupreme Court of Florida · 1949
- Rochell v. City of FlorenceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Findley v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1954