Globe Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Pappas
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.
The complaint follows strictly the Code form (Code, § 9531, form 13), and we find no tenable objection to it on account of the fact that plaintiffs’ entire claim for loss of dwelling, storehouse, stock of goods, and household and store fixtures, all insured in one policy, is stated in one count. We find no sufficient reason for requiring a multiplicity of counts. The cases cited to this point by appellant, Capital City Ins. Co. v. Jones, 128 Ala. 361, 30 So. 674, 86 Am. St. Rep. 152, and Southern Railway Co. v. McIntyre, 152 Ala. 223, 44 So. 624, are inapt. They deal with questions of a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Insurance Co. of North America v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Capital City Insurance v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Hanover Fire Insurance v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Walker v. Lancashire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. ShapiroSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
- Girard Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. GunnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Georgia Cas. and Sur. Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
- Indemnity Company of America v. PughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. BrantleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.