Legal Opinion
Waterman S. S. Corporation v. Brill
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided May 14, 1942No. 1 Div. 167PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOULDIN, Justice.
Are the wages of seamen engaged in the ordinary coastwise trade subject to garnishment?
The Court of Appeals in the opinion now for review held in the affirmative on the authority of Duggar v. Mobile & Gulf Nav. Co., 25 Ala.App. 2, 140 So. 611, sustained on certiorari on grounds stated in opinion, 224 Ala. 359, 140 So. 614.
Quite properly the Court of Appeals calls our attention to grounds upon which the soundness of former decisions are challenged-; and suggests: “were the matter, now before us, original, we would be impressed that a difficult question was presented.”
The…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Smiley v. HolmSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Warner v. GoltraSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Lindsay v. United States Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Wilder v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- United States v. THE" GRACE LOTHROP"Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. FontenotSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
- United States Steel Corp. v. WoodAlabama Court of Appeals · 1958
- X-L Finance Co. v. BonvillionSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1971
- Waterman S.S. Corporation v. BrillAlabama Court of Appeals · 1942
- Philpot v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.