Pharr v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the. Chancery Court at Talladega. , ■ THIS was a bill in chancery, filed by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendant in error.
Read the full summary
Error to the. Chancery Court at Talladega. , ■ THIS was a bill in chancery, filed by the plaintiffs in error, against the defendant in error. The bill charges, that the plaintiffs in error, kept a public house at the Talladega Springs, and employed the defendant, to assist in the management of, the house, for his .board, lodging and his . bill at the bar, and deposited with him eight hundred dollars, to buy provisions for the house; that defendant remained four or five months, but. from intoxication, was unable to attend to business, and, was.dismissed; that defendant did not expend more than…
1Opinion of the Court
. ORMOND, J.
It is very certain that the 'plaintiffs, in error, do not, in their bill, show any ground for overhauling the judgment obtained at law, by the defendant. The, cases cited by the counsel, for the defendant in error, are decisive to show that'this case is not, at least in this mode relie va ble in equity. There is a total want of that diligence, Which'the Court of Chancery requires, before its interposition can be obtained.. If, as does not sufficiently appear, from the bill, the plaintiffs, 'froto "the necessity'of attending to another suit, from sickness, or from any Other cause,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pond v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
3Cited by12 opinions
- Waldrom v. WaldromSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Ex parte WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Broda v. GreenwaldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Stephenson v. KilpatrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Talladega Mercantile Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.