Burdeshaw & Co. v. Comer & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Dale Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. J. M. Carmichael. The .facts are stated in the opinion. [.The suit was against the partnership only. JDollins & Adams v. Poliak & Co., 89 Ala. 351; Bolling & Son v. Speller, 96 Ala. 269; Bal-dridge v. Eason, 99 Ala. 516. cited 89 Ala. 351.
1Opinion of the CourtHead, J.
The appeal is prosecuted from the judgment of the circuit court amending the judgment entry, nunc pro tunc, so as to show a recovery by the plaintiffs against 0. M. Hill and P. L. Burdeshaw, as individuals. The objection urged against the action of the lower court, is, that the suit was really against P. L. Burde-shaw & Co. as a partnership, and not against said co-*618partners. The áction was begun by attachment which issued upon an affidavit setting forth that P. L. Burde-shaw & Co., composed of P. L. Burdeshaw, O. M. Hill, and John Burdeshaw, were jointly indebted to the plaintiffs, and the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Blackman v. Moore-Handley Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Bolling v. SpellerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Collins & Co. v. Hyslop & SonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Dobson v. DicksonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hall v. First BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Cootey v. RemingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1937
- Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Greenstein v. 1st National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908