Pollak v. Brush Electric Ass'n of St. Louis
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. This writ of error brought up for review a judgment in favor of the Brush Electric Association of St. Louis, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error for the sum of $6458.10. Besides the common count for goods and merchandise sold to the defendant, Poliak, the complaint contained a .special courtt based on a written agreement between the parties, executed November 13, 1883. By the…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. This writ of error brought up for review a judgment in favor of the Brush Electric Association of St. Louis, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error for the sum of $6458.10. Besides the common count for goods and merchandise sold to the defendant, Poliak, the complaint contained a .special courtt based on a written agreement between the parties, executed November 13, 1883. By the first article of that agreement,- Poliak ágreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $7942 as follows: “Seven thousand dollars…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hablan
He stated the case as above reported, and continued:
1. The special pleas contained nothing of which the defendant could not have availed himself under his plea, of the gen eral issue. If the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to any of the special pleas, it was an error without’ injury, and, therefore, not constituting a ground of reversal. Code of Alabama, 1886, § 2675; Kannady v. Lambert, 37 Alabama, 57, 59. .. 2, It was not, error to allow the written agreement between the parties to be read in evidence without proof of its execution. The .Code of Alabama provides that “every written…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- President of the Bank of Columbia v. HagnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Goodlett v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
3Cited by23 opinions
- Rosenthal Paper Co. v. National Folding Box & Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Nigro v. ContiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- King v. McLean Asylum of the Massachusetts General HospitalCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1894
- Commissioner v. R. J. Darnell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Concrete Inv. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1917
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.