Legal Opinion

Martin v. Baines

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 29, 1928No. 6 Div. 997PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROWN J.

(after stating the facts as above). The amendment to the bill relates to the same transaction between the same parties, and the motion to strike was properly overruled. Code 1923, § 6558; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Oden, 164 Ala. 1, 51 So. 240.

Rule 10 of Chancery Practice, cited by appellant,, provides that:

“Bills which contain blanks are defective, and may be ordered to be taken off the file.”

However, the fact that^ a bill contains blanks does not render it demurrable, unless the omitted averment is essential to the equity of the bill. As the rule indicates, it may be…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Chambers v. RingstaffSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
  2. Mead v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  3. Allen v. KitchenIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Minge v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  5. O'Neal v. SeixasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. General Securities Corporation v. WeltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  2. King v. ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  3. Blythe v. EnslenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. Klepac v. FendleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  5. Wiley v. MurphreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933

11 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