Dorrough v. Mt. Pleasant Fertilizer Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
If this were a bill for an accounting from the respondent for the amounts collected by him under the eix-eumstances shown by the .bill — the amount of the collections being unknown to complainant and lying peculiarly within the knowledge of Dorrough — it would no doubt present a case of equitable cognizance. Phillips v. Birmingham Ind. Co., 161 Ala. 509, 50 South. 77, 135 Am. St. Rep. 156; Halsted v. Rabb, 8 Port. 63. But, as declared in the Phillips Case, the bare relation of principal and agent would not give jxirisdiction to a court of equity.
However, the accounting here sought is from the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Beggs v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Phillipps v. Birmingham Industrial Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Bank of Guntersville v. CrayterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Chrichton v. HaylesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Halsted v. RabbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Pate v. BrunerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
- Callahan v. Auburn Production Credit Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Electrolux Corporation v. IversonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
- Camp v. Roanoke Guano Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937