Legal Opinion

Deason v. Thrash

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 8, 1985No. 83-566PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is the second appeal in this case involving a suit on a note. We reverse and remand.

The facts are not disputed, and a simple issue is involved, i.e., is Thrash still liable on the note he signed or has Freeman released him? The facts are:

W.A. Freeman operated a Ford dealership as a sole proprietorship from 1972 until 1977. In 1977, he incorporated the dealership and issued 100 shares of stock, 60 shares to himself, and 20 each to his two children, W.A. Freeman, Jr., and Anita Freeman Deason. Thereafter the Freemans sold the stock to Thrash and Walters for $131,560 and leased the premises…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Penney v. BurnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Biggers v. IngersollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  3. Thrash v. DeasonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gloor v. BancorpSouth BankCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2005
  2. In re BondurantUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 1995
  3. Parnell v. SouthTrust Bank of Etowah County, N.A.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1986
  4. Cobb v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1991
  5. Thrash v. DeasonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API