Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Conradi

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 21, 1923No. 6 Div. 925PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

The time limit to the right of amendment, in equity, is the rendition of the final decree. Kirby v. Puckett, 199 Ala. 594, 75 South. 6; Norville v. Seeberg, 205 Ala. 96, 87 South. 164.

A cross-bill must be as complete and perfect as an original bill (Farmers’ S. Bank v. Kirkland, 200 Ala. 146, 75 South. 894; 21 C. J. § 612, p. 507), though it may refer to and adopt parts of the original bill as to “matter of description” to save unnecessary repetition (H. C. & W. B. Reynolds Co. v. Reynolds, 190 Ala. 468, 474, 67 South. 293; Nelson v. Dunn, 15 Ala. 501).

A cross-bill is sufficiently a part of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Union Rolling Mill Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Nelson & Hatch v. DunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
  4. Continental Life Insurance v. WebbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  5. Faulk & Co. v. Hobbie Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1912

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Lowery v. MaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  3. Johnson v. GeraldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  4. Emens v. StephensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  5. Maya Corporation v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940

11 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