Legal Opinion
Brunswick Corporation v. Sittason
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided May 21, 1964No. 8 Div. 114PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMPSON, Justice.
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harwood contains a full statement of the facts which should be referred to in connection with a study of this opinion.
The dissenting opinion concludes that the Brunswick Corporation had within the *47State of Alabama a “soliciting agent”; that said agent took an order from one Dr. Sittason for bowling equipment; that such order provided that to be binding upon Brunswick Corporation it must be accepted by an officer of the company at his home office in Chicago, Illinois; and finally that the “soliciting agent” nor any other agent had…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- East Coast Freight Lines, Inc. v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
- Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- More v. New York Bowery Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Smith v. SheeleySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Comer & Co. v. Way & EdmundsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Moree v. Wells Fargo BankDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 2019
- Morris Tucker v. United States of America, d/b/a United States Postal ServiceDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2026