Legal Opinion
Glidden Co. v. Laney
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided June 3, 1937No. 6 Div. 58PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOSTER, Justice.
This is an action for damages for the malicious prosecution of a civil suit on an account without the issuance of a garnishment or attachment on the authority of Peerson v. Ashcraft Cotton Mills, 201 Ala. 348, 78 So. 204, L.R.A.1918D, 540. It is against a corporation and its general manager and credit manager, and a judgment was rendered for plaintiff against all of them, but on motion for a new trial it was set aside as to the manager, but left against the corporation and credit manager.
The several counts of the complaint charge that the defendants maliciously and without…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Kirksey v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Standard Oil Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Gulsby v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- City National Bank v. JeffriesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Gilliam v. South, & North Alabama RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Delchamps, Inc. v. BryantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1999
- Bromund v. HoltWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Key v. DozierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- SouthTrust Bank v. JONES, MORRISON, WOMACKCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2005
- Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. GunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.