Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bishop v. Alabama Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 2, 1926No. 6 Div. 543Published

1DissentGardner, J.

(dissenting.) Contracts of the character here involved and the remedy of specific performance for their enforcement are specifically authorized by legislative enactment (§§ 7142, 7143, Code of 1923), and they have met with the test of review in this court (Warren v. Ala. Farm Bureau Cotton Ass’n, 213 Ala. 61, 104 So. 267), wherein is the following language:

“But the statute in this case gives the remedy by injunction to prevent threatened breaches of the contract by association members in the disposition of their cotton, and by their contract they have expressly assented thereto. We can see no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Warren v. Alabama Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Tobacco Growers Co-Operative Ass'n v. PattersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. Tobacco Growers Association v. . Harvey Son Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Tobacco Growers Co-Operative Ass'n v. L. Harvey & Son Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Cotton Growers Co-Operative Ass'n v. BullockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API