Legal Opinion

McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 16, 1925No. 6 Div. 360PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

It is provided by statute that, if a contract be entire, but one suit can be maintained for tbe breach thereof; if severable, or if the breaches occur at successive periods in an entire contract (as installment payments), an action will lie for each breach; “but all the breaches occurring up to the commencement of the action must be included therein.” Code 1907, § 2505; Code 1923, § 5721; Callan v. Anderson, 131 Ala. 228, 31 So. 427; House v. Donnelly, 7 Ala. App. 267, 81 So. 18; Mason v. Mason, 5 Ala. App. 377, 59 So. 699.

In Callan v. Anderson, supra, an action on a promissory note, the…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Gardner v. BuckbeeNew York Supreme Court · 1824
  2. Strauss v. MeertiefSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
  3. Chamberlain v. GaillardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
  4. Formby v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
  5. Rake's Adm'r v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Crowson v. CodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  2. Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  3. McCormick v. McCormickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  4. Jenkins v. RaulstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  5. First Nat. Bank v. MurphreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928

12 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