Legal Opinion

Decatur Fertilizer Co. v. Walls

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 16, 1924No. 8 Div. 667PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

Appellant sued appellee on a promissory note, the consideration of which note was fertilizer purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff.

The defendant sought by plea 2 to inter-, pose the defense that the fertilizer was not tagged as required by the laws of this state. Acts 1911, p. 365; section 24 et seq., Code 1907; Gen. Acts 1919, p. 184; Steiner & Son v. Ray, 84 Ala. 93, 4 So. 112, 5 Am. St. Rep. 332; Clark’s Cove Guano Co. v. Dowling, 85 Ala. 142, 4 So. 604; Brown v. Adair, 104 Ala. 652, 16 So. 439; Kirby v. Huntsville Fertilizer Co., 105 Ala. 529, 17 So. 38,—and by the additional plea…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Bell v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
  2. International Agri. Cor. v. AbercrombieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
  3. McCormick & Richardson v. Joseph & AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  4. Pilgreen v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
  5. Steiner & Sons v. RaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1887

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Walls v. Decatur Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  2. Hyatt v. International Agricultural CorporationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  3. Russell v. Sobel, Bernstein & Greene Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API