Barrett & Co. v. Pollak Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Cross-Appeals from Montgomery Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. Jere N. Williams. The original bill in this case was filed by H. W. Barrett & Co. on March 1, 1894, and several amendments were afterwards filed. The bill as amended alleges that Poliak Co. was a mercantile corporation; that prior to January 8, 1894, it had been conducting a large business in the city of Montgomery, Ala.
Read the full summary
Cross-Appeals from Montgomery Chancery Court. Heard before Hon. Jere N. Williams. The original bill in this case was filed by H. W. Barrett & Co. on March 1, 1894, and several amendments were afterwards filed. The bill as amended alleges that Poliak Co. was a mercantile corporation; that prior to January 8, 1894, it had been conducting a large business in the city of Montgomery, Ala. That I. Poliak, the president of the corporation owned substantially all the stock therein, and practically controlled the entire business management. That on the 6th day of January, 1894, said corporation had…
1Opinion of the CourtHead, J.
In Pollak Co. etal v. Muscogee Manufacturing Company, at the present term, we practically settled the'controlling questions presented by these appeals. In that case the purpose, in one phase of the bill, was to have three specified attachments, and the levies thereof, upon goods of Poliak Company, a corporation, alleged to have been invited and procured by the debtor itself, and certain pledges of choses in action made by the debtor to two of those attaching creditors, declared parts of a general assignment executed by a debtor shortly after-wards ; and in another phase to have the attached…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Preston v. SpauldingIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Nelson v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Beecher v. Marquette & Pacific Rolling Mill Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Holt & Chambers v. BancroftSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Westerlund v. Black Bear Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
- Eastman v. ParkinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. State ex rel. GraySupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- In re Richardson's EstateDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1923
- Stuart v. HoltSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.