Legal Opinion

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Beeland Bros. Mercantile Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 12, 1942No. 3 Div. 355PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOSTER, Justice.

The question in this case is the liability of appellant, defendant in the trial court, for the services of attorneys Powell and Hamilton in assisting attorney Calvin Poole in the defense of a damage suit against appellee, as to which appellant had insured appellee according to the terms of the policy. There is no contention about the coverage or the duty of appellant to defend the suit in the name of appellee and to pay all costs taxed against insured in the suit, and “all expenses incurred by the company.” The word “company” in the policy was defined t£ be the appellant, as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Leach & Co. v. PeirsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Denson v. Kirkpatrick Drilling Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. King v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
  4. Dennis v. Waterford Packing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1915
  5. Winn v. Cudahy Packing Co. of AlabamaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Frank W. Parks and John Patterson v. The New York Times CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
  2. T. R. Miller Mill Co. v. RallsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
  3. Hardy Ins. Co. v. Baumhauer-Croom Ins.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1976
  4. Frank W. Parks and John Patterson v. The New York Times CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
  5. T. R. Miller Mill Co. v. RallsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API