Legal Opinion

Cosby-Hodges Milling Co. v. Nance

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided March 18, 1947No. 7 Div. 890PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARR, Judge.

Plaintiff below, appellee here, brought suit based on the alleged negligence or unskillfulness of appellant’s agent.

The defendant sold hog feed and had among its employees Mr. Whitmire, a veterinarian. When requested by the farmers, he would inoculate their hogs to produce immunization against cholera. No charge was made for this service, but the hog owners were required to pay for the serum used.

A reasonable interpretation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that this favor was a good-will gesture on the part of the feed company. The practice was intended as an invitation for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kelley v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1946
  2. Alabama Co. v. NorwoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  3. Smith v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1918
  4. Hornsby v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1917
  5. Tarwater v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1917

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Simmons v. CochranSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
  2. Pigford v. BillingsleyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1954
  3. Lancaster v. JohnsonAlabama Court of Appeals · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API