Legal Opinion
Boaz Bank v. Nailer
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided June 11, 1925No. 8 Div. 777PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The trial was had upon counts 5 and 6 for money had and received, and for negligently intermingling the individual funds of plaintiff with those of a partnership of which plaintiff was a member.
The overruling of demurrer to count 5 is assigned as error. That count avers that the deposit was “on behalf and to the use of the plaintiff” ; that a demand for payment by defendant was made and refused. It is not averred how or when the demand was made. Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Montgomery (Williams), 206 Ala. 394, 90 So. 340; Id., 18 Ala. App. 273, 90 So. 339. A proper demand for payment by a bank…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- First National Bank v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Tobias v. Josiah Morris & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1899
- First Nat. Bank v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Alabama Power Co. v. StognerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rudisill Soil Pipe Co. v. First Nat. Bank of AnnistonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- AmSouth Bank v. Reliable Janitorial Serv., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
- Rhodes v. W. B. Folmar & SonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- State v. Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1971