Legal Opinion

Varner v. Hardy

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 7, 1923No. 5 Div. 851PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The complaint is based on the common counts, to which defendant replied by the general issue and pleas 6 and 7 of set-off. To special pleas, including No. 10, demurrer was sustained.

When a party, without sufficient cause, abandons a contract, leaving unperformed the work contracted for, he cannot recover, under the common counts, on a quantum valebat or quantum meruit. Martin v. Massie, 127 Ala. 504, 29 South. 31; Worthington v. McGarry, 149 Ala. 251, 42 South. 988; Carbon Hill Coal Co. v. Cunningham, 153 Ala. 573, 44 South. 1016; Maxwell v. Moore, 163 Ala. 490, 50 South. 882. An exception to…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Brigham & Co. v. CarlisleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  2. Worthington & Co. v. GwinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  3. Jones v. LanierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Lowy v. RosengrantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  5. McCormick v. BadhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Baker Sand & Gravel Co. v. Rogers Plumbing & Heating Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  2. Dean v. MyersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
  3. Cunningham v. LoweryCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1970
  4. Malone v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  5. Howell v. DoddSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934

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

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

Powered by the Exa API