Hicks v. Meadows
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Houston Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. W. R. Chapman. Bill by W. J. Hides against Joe Meadows and another to restrain the prosecution of a detinue suit for the recovery of a certificate of deposit. From a decree sustaining demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals
1Opinion
ON REHEARING.
THOMAS, J.
In response to the application for a rehearing, we call attention to the fact that this is not an action on the certificate of deposit for the payment of the money, such as by section 2489 of the Code it is provided the party really interested may maintain, whether he has the legal title or not. It is an injunction to restrain procedure in detinue for the recovery of the certificate of deposit. Section 2489 has no application to this suit.
(4-6) It has been decided that detinue may be maintained for specific moneys (S. H. & S. Co. v. Lester, 166 Ala. 96, 52 South. 328;…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Woodward v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Martin v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Jackson, Morris & Co. v. RutherfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Miller v. Jones' AdministratorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Alabama State Bank v. BarnesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.