Clark v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
SIMPSON, Justice.
The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of nonsuit, assigning for error the adverse rulings of the court sustaining demurrer to Count 2, as amended, and to Count 3 of the complaint.
Count 2, as amended, was on an account stated, which in effect, setting out the quo modo or basis of the action (We have disapproved this method of pleading. Ingalls Steel Products Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 226 Ala. 122[4], 145 So. 464), claimed on an alleged agreement of an adjustor appointed by the defendant company “to look after the adjustment of the claim” under a policy purportedly…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Great American Ins. Co. v. DoverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Rice v. Schloss & KahnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Ingalls Steel Products Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Union Marine General Ins. Co. v. HolmesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
- Ivy Coal & Coke Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
- Ingalls Iron Works Co. v. IngallsDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1957
- Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
- Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950