Legal Opinion

Lovett v. Funderburk

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 31, 1932No. 6 Div. 894PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOSTER, X

This case was tried on counts 4 and 5 as amended, in deceit. They are sufficient to state a cause of action. Williams v. Bedenbaugh, 215 Ala. 200, 110 So. 286; Byars v. Sanders, 215 Ala. 561, 112 So. 127; Ex parte Tidwell, 205 Ala. 254, 87 So. 626; section 9531, form 21, Code.

While they do not expressly allege that" the defendant made the representation to induce plaintiff to act, and while that is an element of deceit, there is no ground of demurrer addressed to such defect. King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 180 Ala. 118, 126, 60 So. 143.

There was no demurrer or motion to strike…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cartwright v. BralySupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  2. Williams v. BedenbaughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  3. King v. Livingston Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  4. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. CarrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  5. Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. EllenburgSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Esslinger v. SpraginsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  2. Louisiana Oil Corporation v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  3. Lipscomb v. Bessemer Board of EducationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
  4. McCay v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
  5. Knox v. Cuna Mutal Insurance SocietySupreme Court of Alabama · 1968

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