Daily v. Quinn
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomeeville, J.
Appellant assigns for error, the giving of several portions of the oral charge given to the jury. The record does not show that any objection was made or exception reserved to any part of that charge, and of course no part of it is now subject to review.
The three-year statute of limitations was not applicable to either count of the complaint, and under the evidence it Avas wholly irrelevant. Defendant’s requested instruction to find for him under that plea was properly refused.
Appellant’s main insistence is that the evidence failed to make out a case for plaintiff, in that the agreement shown…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nunez v. DautelSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Simon v. . EtgenNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Crooker v. HolmesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1875
- Williston v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- Randall v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by7 opinions
- MacLeod v. Belvedale, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Baker v. GaskinsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1943
- Wilson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1935
- Sims v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Henderson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.