Legal Opinion

Daniel v. Birmingham Dental Mfg. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 22, 1922No. 6 Div. 543PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

In Norton v. Randolph, 176 Ala. 381, 58 South. 283, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 129, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 714, we held that a “spite fence,” as there defined, is a nuisance which may be abated by injunction from a court of equity.

To bring a case within the principle there announced, we said that—

“it should be distinctly alleged, not only that the structure complained of is entirely useless to the respondent, and without value to his property, but also that it was maliciously erected for the purpose of injuring complainant in the use and enjoyment of his property.”

In Norton v. Randolph, supra, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McHan v. McMurrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  2. Nelson v. HammondsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Franklin v. LongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  4. Norton v. RandolphSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Walker v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  2. Obolensky v. TrombleySupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  3. Welsh v. ToddSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Cruce v. McCombsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  5. Toney v. BurgessSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922

5 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