Legal Opinion

Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. Arrington

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 22, 1927No. 3 Div. 762PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

It is the settled law in this state that the vendor in a conditional «ale of chattels, who successfully asserts his right to repossess the property,' thereby abandons his right to recover the purchase price. Sandlin v. Maury Nat. Bank, 210 Ala. 349, 98 So. 190; Sanders v. Newton, 140 Ala. 335, 37 So. 340, Ann. Cas. 267. This principle is very generally recognized by the American courts. 24 R. C. L. 491, § 785.

The proposition presented by defendant’s special plea numbered 8 is that when a conditional vendor has exercised his right to repossession by taking from the vendee a part of the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Dozier v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  3. Stephenson v. AllisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
  4. South & North Alabama Railroad v. Henlein & BarrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
  5. Sumner v. WoodsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co. v. CurtisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  2. Perkins v. SkatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. City of Mobile v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
  4. Kennedy v. CollinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
  5. Life Casuality Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Crow.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1935

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API