Legal Opinion

Garnett v. Scott

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 6, 1922No. 8 Div. 453PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages for conversion. Defendant duly filed a plea of the general issue. The court rendered judgment against the defendant “by default.” There is no recital of proof being offered. >

There was error in rendering final judgment for damages for trover — on simple recital of default — without evidence or without a writ of inquiry to establish the controverted issues of fact made by the pleadings. The count was not founded on “an instrument in writing or verified account ascertaining the plaintiff’s demand” (Code, §§ 3970, 3971, 5356); and the amount of plaintiff’s loss could…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Stewart v. Goode & UlrickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
  2. Oliver v. KinneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Grigg v. GilmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  4. Manhattan Fire Insurance v. Fowler & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  5. McCoy v. Harrell, Nichols & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1866

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co. v. LoweSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  2. Dulin v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  3. Wooten v. Traders' Securities Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API