Halsted v. Rabb
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit court of Conecuh, exercising Chain-eery jurisdiction. Bill for discovery. — The hill was on motion of the defendant, dismissed for want of equity; and the plaintiff' in error assigned: 1. That the court below' erred in dismissing the hill for want of equity. 2. In rendering a plea against complainant for the* costs.
1Opinion of the CourtGoldth Waite, J.
— The decree of the Circuit court,dismissing the complainant’s hill for want of equity, can-not he supported. On looking into it, we find it diseases that the defendant was employed as a clerk or agent to take charge of a mercantile establishment, for the be*64nefit of the complainant, who at sundry times furnished invoices of goods, to a considerable amount in value. It alleges that these were sold by the defendant, and have not been fully accounted for by him. That moneys have been deceived in the business, and not entered on the books, or otherwise accounted for; and charges many other…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Julian v. WoolbertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- County of Dallas v. TimberlakeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Grand Bay Land Co. v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Hall v. McKellerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Crothers v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.