Stokes v. Dimmick
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Montgomery City Court. Heard before Hon. A. D. Sayre. Bill by J. W. Dimmick against M. C. Stokes for the sale of pledged property and the appointment of a receiver pending the litigation. Decree for complainant and respondent appeals. The law is very careful in respect to declaring defaults which are in the nature of a forfeiture.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery City Court. Heard before Hon. A. D. Sayre. Bill by J. W. Dimmick against M. C. Stokes for the sale of pledged property and the appointment of a receiver pending the litigation. Decree for complainant and respondent appeals. The law is very careful in respect to declaring defaults which are in the nature of a forfeiture. They must be alleged specifically and circumstantially, and not in general terms. — S. é N. R. Go. v. Lancaster, 62 Ala. 555; 121 Ala. 135; lb. 396; lb. 426; 127 Ala. 195; 135 Ala. 608; 61 Ala. 428; 56 Ala. 468. Counsel discuss other assignments of…
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
— The bill in this case was filed by the appellee, against the appellant, and sought to collect certain debts, by the appointment of a receiver and the sale of certain property which had been pledged for the payment of said debts. The allegations of the bill are, in substance: That said appellant (Stokes) had obtained from one Smith an option on the timber on certain lands, and had also obtained from one Robinson a conveyance of the timber on certain other lands, to *240be paid for in the future; that on August 23, 1904, said respondent (Stokes) entered into an agreement with the said complainant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tutwiler v. Tuskaloosa Coal, Iron & Land Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- James Dalzell's Son & Co. v. The Daniel KaineDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1888