Wilkinson v. Bradley, Wilson & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from tbe Chancery Court of Madison. Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The original and amended bills in this cause were filed by the appellant, George B. Wilkinson, as administrator of William W. Matthews, deceased, against ■ Luke Matthews and Bradley, Wilson & Co., the appellees, to enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lands sold by appellant’s intestate to said Luke, and for a personal decree against said Luke and Bradley, Wilson & Co., for any balance due, after…
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Chancery Court of Madison. Heard before the Hon. H. C. Speake. The original and amended bills in this cause were filed by the appellant, George B. Wilkinson, as administrator of William W. Matthews, deceased, against ■ Luke Matthews and Bradley, Wilson & Co., the appellees, to enforce a vendor’s lien on certain lands sold by appellant’s intestate to said Luke, and for a personal decree against said Luke and Bradley, Wilson & Co., for any balance due, after exhausting the lands, upon said Luke’s bill of exchange given for the purchase money, and left with Bradley, Wilson & Co.…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
In determining the question of multifariousness, the court can look only to the bill, including the prayer for relief. It is not permissible to consider the answer or proofs. — See Halstead v. Shepherd, 23 Ala. 558; Carpenter v. Hall, 18 Ala. 439. Two very strong cases of unequal interest in the several defendants, and yet the bills in each case held not to be multifarious, are Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala. 478; Flemming v. Gilmer, 35 Ala. 62.
Speaking of multifariousness, Chief Justice Collier said : “ It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile all the decisions on this subject, or…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Varick v. Smith & The Attorney GeneralNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- Juzan v. ToulminSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Horton v. SledgeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Heirs of Holman v. Bank of NorfolkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Mobile & Cedar Point R. R. v. Talman & RalstonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. RhodesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Wedgworth v. WedgworthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Alabama Power Co. v. City of ScottsboroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1915