Legal Opinion
Birmingham Gas Co. v. McKinley
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided March 29, 1934No. 6 Div. 536PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARDNER, Justice.
Count B refers to and adopts the language of the first count (Mattingly v. Houston, 167 Ala. 167, 52 So. 78), and adds averments disclosing clearly the purpose to charge wantonness and a reliance only upon this single cause of action.
Adoption of the language of count 1 is properly to be construed as by way of inducement and a shorthand history of the case. The count does not attempt to join the two causes of action, ancl was not subject to demurrer on that ground. Verner v. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 103 Ala. 574, 15 So. 872; B., R. L. & P. Co. v. Nicholas, 181 Ala. 491, 61 So. 361;…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. KnightSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
- Moore v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Sims v. Alabama Water Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Mattingly v. HoustonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- B'ham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. NicholasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Coosa Valley Telephone Company v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Evers-Jordan Furniture Co. v. HartzogSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Coosa Valley Telephone Company v. MartinAlabama Court of Appeals · 1961
- Coosa Valley Telephone Company v. MartinAlabama Court of Appeals · 1961