Legal Opinion
Shine v. Nash Abstract & Investment Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided May 10, 1928No. 6 Div. 982PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The weight of authority sustains the rule that one engaged in the business or calling of making abstracts of title to real estate for hire, under, employment of a vendor, is not liable, because of negligence in the preparation of the abstract, to the vendee, in the absence of notice or knowledge that the. abstract is to be furnished to, and used by, the vendee in consummating the sale of the property. National Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U. S. 195, 25 L. Ed. 621; 1 C. J. 369, § 12; 1 R. C. L. 94, § 7.
And some courts hold that the application of the rule is not affected by knowledge on the part…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Glanzer v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Lawall v. GromanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Meyerson v. New Idea Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Going v. Alabama Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Sickler v. Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1940
- Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. FonvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Anderson v. Howard Hall CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
- Investment Corporation of Florida v. BuchmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
- Capital Bank & Trust Co. v. CoreLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.