Legal Opinion

Dorrough v. Mt. Pleasant Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 17, 1924No. 6 Div. 960PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Beggs v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1892
  2. Phillipps v. Birmingham Industrial Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  3. Bank of Guntersville v. CrayterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  4. Chrichton v. HaylesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  5. Halsted v. RabbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cleveland Storage Co. v. Guardian Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  2. Pate v. BrunerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
  3. Callahan v. Auburn Production Credit Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
  4. Electrolux Corporation v. IversonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
  5. Camp v. Roanoke Guano Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API