Legal Opinion

Gillespie v. Woodward Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 10, 1923No. 6 Div. 805PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.

The suit is for damages for that defendant is alleged to have obstructed the flow of water in Village creek, a natural water, thereby causing an overflow upon plaintiff’s property, etc. A jury found with defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff criticises charge 2, given for defendant, on account of the omission of the word “proximately” before “caused” in the concluding part of the charge. The criticism is too nice for practical purposes. The charge states, with adequate completeness, the rule of law sustained by the authorities. Jones v. Tennessee Co., 202 Ala. 382, 80 South. 463;…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  2. Jones v. Tennessee Coal, Iron R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  3. Jones v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1918

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Preston v. LaSalle Apartments, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  2. Bradshaw, Plosser & Rowe, Inc. v. HoskinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  3. Terry v. NelmsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
  4. Terry v. NelmsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API