Legal Opinion

Pope v. Ryals

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 5, 1936No. 3 Div. 159PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, Justice.

The suit was for personal injuries and damages, the result of a collision on the public highway.

Plaintiff propounded interrogatories to the defendant under the statute, section 7764, Code 1923. Answers to the interrogatories propounded thereunder are in the nature of discovery of “material testimony” in the cause, and the interrogating party only has the option of offering the same in evidence at the trial. If such party so elects, he “must offer the whole, and cannot select the answers or parts of answers suited to his purpose” (Alabama Power Co. v. Bodine, 213 Ala. 627, 105…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Davis v. SmithermanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  2. Alabama Power Co. v. BodineSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  3. Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  4. Birmingham Railway Light & Power Co. v. OdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  5. Henry v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Baldwin v. McClendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
  2. Valley Transp. System v. ReinartzArizona Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Gast v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  4. Carmichael v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1972
  5. Harris v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1957

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

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

Powered by the Exa API