Legal Opinion
Barksdale v. Strickland & Hazard
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 17, 1929No. 8 Div. 131PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
This action is by the appellee against the appellants. The first count is in detinue for the recovery of a sawmill and equipment, specifically described, and the second is trover claiming damages for the wrongful conversion of the same property.
The plaintiff is described in the caption of the record as “Strickland & Hazard, plaintiffs,” and in the judgment entry the recital is; “Comes the plaintiff by its attorneys and the defendants in person and by their attorneys.”
Relying on Moore & McGee v. Burns & Co., 60 Ala. 269, and Lanford v. Patton, Donegan & Co., 44 Ala. 585, the appellants insist,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Humes v. O'Bryan & WashingtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Barrett v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Jones & Co. v. PeeblesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Ryan v. YoungSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Seymour & Sons v. Thomas Harrow Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1886
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dewberry v. Bank of Standing RockSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Sullivan v. MillerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Norris v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
- Shepherd v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. OutlawAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.