Legal Opinion

National City Bank v. Barret

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 22, 1925No. 1 Div. 329PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

Under section 6604. Code of 1923, a respondent in equity against whom a decree pro eonfesso has been entered is entitled as a matter of right, upon making a proper showing, and proffering a full and sufficient answer, to have the default set aside. May v. Dimick, 206 Ala. 107, 89 So. 374.

The trial court refused to set aside the decree pro eonfesso in this case solely on the ground:

“That the defendants have not fully answered the bill in. the particular that they have not given an itemized statement of the moneys received by the defendant the National City Bank, or its predecessors in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Vaughan v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  2. May v. DimickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  3. Wright v. MaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1867

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ex Parte JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  2. Ex parte HelblingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
  3. National City Bank of Mobile v. BarretSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API