DeSota Coal Min. & Dev. Co. v. Hill
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Birmingham City Court. Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe. Bill by the He Sota Coal Mining & Development Company against Jim Hill and another, to enjoin the collection of a judgment, and for general relief. Decree for respondents, and complainant appeals. For former appeal see De Sota* Goal Moving & Development Company v. Sill, 188 Ala. 669, 65 South. 988, where it was held that the bill was not sufficient against demurrer to invoke the jurisdiction of equity.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Birmingham City Court. Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe. Bill by the He Sota Coal Mining & Development Company against Jim Hill and another, to enjoin the collection of a judgment, and for general relief. Decree for respondents, and complainant appeals. For former appeal see De Sota* Goal Moving & Development Company v. Sill, 188 Ala. 669, 65 South. 988, where it was held that the bill was not sufficient against demurrer to invoke the jurisdiction of equity. As amended, the bill now charges that the judgment was obtained “by fraud and upon perjured testimony which orator was unable…
1Opinion of the Court
SOMERVILLE, J. —
In the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction to set aside judgments at law for fraud, chancery has always deemed it inexpedient, if not impracticable, to circumscribe the area of justiceable fraud with a boundary that is fixed and inflexible. Hence, it is that, though general rules of limitation have been formulated and everywhere sanctioned, yet occasional aberrations from these settled rules are to be met with in the exercise of this power by most of the courts of this country. Mr. Pomeroy justly declares that: “The ground for the exercise of this jurisdiction is that there…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Marshall v. HolmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McDonald v. PearsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Adler v. Van Kirk Land & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1896
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Peters Mineral Land Co. v. HooperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Sims v. RigginsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Williams v. OvercastSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Kelen v. BrewerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.