Iron City Grain Co. v. Arnold
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
SOMERVILLE, X
Looking to the whole evidence, we think it fairly supports the findings of the trial court and the conclusion that there was a complete and effective delivery of the car of hay at defendant’s warehouse in North Birmingham, in conformity with the seller’s obligation in the premises, from which it resulted that title passed to the buyer, accompanied by the risk of loss. Capehart v. Furman, etc., Co., 103 Ala. 671, 16 So. 627, 49 Am. St. Rep. 60; Ala. Nat. Bank v. Parker, 153 Ala. 597, 601, 45 So. 161. Appellant’s argument is limited to a negation of the fact of efficient delivery…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pilgreen v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Magee v. BillingsleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Cook & Laurie Contracting Co. v. BellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Capehart v. Furman Farm Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Foley v. FelrathSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- West India Oil Co. v. Sancho BonetSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1939
- Warrick v. LiddonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Wolff v. ZurgaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- West India Oil Co. v. Sancho BonetSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1939