Legal Opinion

Carter v. Brownell Auto Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 7, 1928No. 6 Div. 34PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The complainant rests his case on the doctrine:

“That, where the agreement secured is simply one for the payment of money, a forfeiture either of land, chattels, securities or money, incurred by its nonperformance, will be set aside on behalf of the defaulting party, or relieved against in any other manner made necessary by the circumstances of the case, on payment of the debt, interest, and costs, if any have accrued, unless by his inequitable conduct he has debarred himself from the remedial right, or unless the remedy is prohibited, under the special…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sheets v. SeldenSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Kann v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  3. Wender Blue Gem Coal Co. v. Louisville Property Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
  4. State v. NethertonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1929
  5. Barton v. W. O. Broyles Stove & Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hunter-Benn Co. Company v. Bassett Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  2. Younglove v. Graham & HillWyoming Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Dean v. Coosa County Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1936
  4. Barry v. WelchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  5. Shaddix v. BilbroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API