Legal Opinion

McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co. v. Holland

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 18, 1928No. 6 Div. 94PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff’s minor child was struck and injured by an automobile driven by one Beall, who was in the employ of defendant, McCormack Brothers Motor Car Company, as its salesman, and which car was owned by said Motor Car Company. These facts made out a prima facie case that Beall was at the time of the accident acting within the line and scope of his authority. Penticost v. Massey, 201 Ala. 261, 77 So. 675; Massey v. Pentecost, 206 Ala. 411, 90 So. 866; Rooks v. Swift & Cot, 210 Ala. 365, 98 So. 16.

The presumption thus established, however, is rebuttable, and, if overcome by undisputed evidence,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dowdell v. BeasleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Ford v. HankinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  3. Penticost v. MasseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  4. Massey v. PentecostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  5. Rooks v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1923

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co. v. RuckerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  2. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. Vanderlippe v. Midwest Studios, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Harrell v. People's City Mission HomeNebraska Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. HammAlabama Court of Appeals · 1955

5 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