Legal Opinion

German-American Wholesale Optical Co. v. Rosen

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 15, 1936No. 6 Div. 858PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARDNER, Justice.

The suit was by appellee against appellants on an attachment bond. Section 6214, Code 1923. There was verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1, which the trial court, on plaintiff’s motion based upon the inadequacy of the recovery, set aside, and from the judgment granting a new trial, defendants appeal.

The sole question presented relates to the matter of inadequacy of the sum awarded plaintiff. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Andrews, 215 Ala. 92, 109 So. 750; Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. Brassell, 188 Ala. 349, 66 So. 447.

Plaintiff proved actual damages in excess of $1,200, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cobb v. MaloneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  2. Parker v. Hayes Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  3. Jackson v. RoddySupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  4. Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. BrassellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
  2. Taylor v. Brownell-O'Hear Pontiac CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
  3. Frost v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
  4. Pike County v. WhittingtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  5. Lassetter v. KingAlabama Court of Appeals · 1947

20 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