Byars v. Sanders
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
If it could be affirmed as a matter of law that the averments of count 2 of the complaint, as last amended, show “a sale in gross,” we are not of opinion that this fact would, relieve the defendant of liability for damages resulting from a fraudulent representation as to the frontage of the lot. Harton v. Belcher, 195 Ala. 186, 70 So. 141; King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 180 Ala. 118, 60 So. 143; Berry v. Wooddy, 16 Ala. App. 348, 77 So. 942; Gralapp v. Hill, 205 Ala. 569, 88 So. 665.
The cases cited and relied on by the appellant — Cox v. Collins, 205 Ala. 491, 88 So. 440, was for breach of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Munroe v. PritchettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- King v. Livingston Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Harton v. BelcherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Maxwell v. ShermanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Berry v. WooddyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gulf Electric Co. v. FriedSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Fairbanks Morse & Co. v. DeesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Lovett v. FunderburkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Benefield v. DaileyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1948
- Gulf Electric Co. v. FriedSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928