Legal Opinion

Ex Parte R. H. Byrd Contracting Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided April 3, 1934No. 6 Div. 525PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RICE, Judge.

These facts seem uncontroverted: Petitioner sued R. Du Pont Thompson. Its complaint consisting of three counts — one, in Code form for money due by “account”; one in Code form for money due for “work and labor done”; and one on contract for work, labor, materials, etc., done and furnished, etc., in the constructing of a certain building by plaintiff (petitioner here) for defendant, and claiming a lien on said ‘‘building and on one acre of land, including that on which it is located, and that immediately adjacent to the surrounding lines of said building,” but describing in said…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Evans v. WilhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
  2. Ingram v. Alabama Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  3. Ex parte SchmidtSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
  4. Ex Parte City Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  5. Bedsole v. PetersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Little v. PeevySupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  2. Nickens v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Shepard v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1977
  4. Cottingham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1975
  5. Cottingham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1975

3 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