Legal Opinion
Evans Bros. Const. Co. v. Steiner Bros.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 26, 1922No. 6 Div. 714PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
A complaint which claims the statutory penalty for willfully and knowingly cutting trees on the land of another without the owner’s consent, and which charges that the acts were done by the agents or servants of the defendant, is not sufficient. Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 277, 22 South. 439, 41 L. R. A. 650, 67 Am. St. Rep. 32: Rudolph v. Holmes, 201 Ala. 461, 78 South. 839.
Count 1 of the complaint is not subject to that objection, however, since it charges that the defendant corporation did the cutting as alleged, “by and through its servants,” etc. This sufficiently charges fan act…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Woodrow v. HawvingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Cooper v. SlaughterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Snedecor v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- Williams v. HendricksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Ex Parte Louisville & N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1919
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Williams v. BedenbaughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Kennedy v. Boles Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2010
- Hamilton v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
- Alabama Power Co. v. BodineSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- White v. Central Dispensary and Emergency HospitalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.