Legal Opinion
Lambert v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided May 18, 1933No. 5 Div. 131PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOULDIN, Justice.
The nature and purpose of the original bill is, for present purposes, sufficiently disclosed in Lambert v. Anderson, 224 Ala. 110, 139 So. 287.
Pending the suit, Union Springs Guano Company and Union Springs Fertilizer Company, its successor in right and title pending the suit, filed their cross-bill to foreclose the mortgages upon thirty head of mules involved in the pending litigation, prayed for, and obtained the appointment of a receiver to conserve the property pending the suit.
The appointment was made by the judge of the court. The appeal is from such decree. The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burgess & Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Sulzby v. PalmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Lambert v. AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Pagett v. BrooksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1903
- Smith-Dimmick Lumber Co. v. Teague, Barnett & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Berman v. Wreck-A-Pair Bldg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- C. E. Development Company v. KitchensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- Mitchell v. McGuireSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
- Boyett's, Inc. v. GrossSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
- Crabtree v. MillerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.