Chicago, Mobile Development Co. v. G. C. Coggin Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Per curiam
This is an appeal from a final decree in equity in two aspects. In fact it is in the form of two separate appeals by the same party from one final decree which has two aspects. That means that the final decree was favorable to the complainant against appellant as one of the respondents, and favorable to cross-complainant, (who was also a respondent) against appellant as a cross-respondent. There are two separate supersedeas appeal bonds, and appellant has assigned error separately on each such appeal. There is no question raised as to the sufficiency of the bill of complaint on a test by…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Copeland v. McAdorySupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- English v. KeySupreme Court of Alabama · 1863
- Cobbs v. NorvilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Wolff v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
- Alger-Sullivan Lumber Co. v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. OwenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1984
- Lacks v. StriblingCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1981
- Health Science Products, Inc. v. Taylor (In Re Health Science Products, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 1995
- Clarke v. Tannin, Inc.United States Circuit Court · 2018
- Colonial Capital Corp. v. SmithCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.