Grand United Order of Eagles, E. B. S. T. v. Workman
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The complaint was in two counts substantially in Code form, and upon parol contract of insurance. The demurrer, that the complaint was vague and fails to set out the parol contract, waé overruled. No assignment of error challenges that ruling. The counts are not vague and insufficient to support a judgment. The cause of action is stated; the parties, though not stated in the complaint, yet their respective relations are shown by the accompanying and attached summons. Roney v. Dothan Produce Co., post, p. 84, 117 So. 422.
In order that we pass upon the ruling on the facts at a trial, before the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ivy v. HoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Cherokee Life Ins, Co. v. BrannumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Prudential Casualty Co. v. KerrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
- Home Insurance v. AdlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chaney v. City of BirminghamAlabama Court of Appeals · 1944
- McLeod v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Chaney v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944