Legal Opinion
Federal Land Bank v. Bridgeforth
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided February 18, 1937No. 8 Div. 785PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, Justice.
The trial was had on amended count 1 for money had and received.
An amendatory count differing from the original only as to dates stated under a videlicet is permissible, and is -not a departure from the original complaint. Stephenson v. Allison, 165 Ala. 238, 51 So. 622, 138 Am.St.Rep. 26; Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Alsup, 224 Ala. 111, 138 So. 824; Code, § 9513. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the count as amended.
One who makes an offer of purchase has the right to stipulate in his offer any conditions, within the law, “as to time, place, quantity, mode of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Bay Minette Land Co. v. StapletonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Ingalls Steel Products Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Paterson & Edey Lumber Co. v. Carolina-Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Stephenson v. AllisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cook v. BrownCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1981
- Truscon Steel Co. v. CookeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
- Corsbie v. PooreAlabama Court of Appeals · 1940
- Cater v. HaralsonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1978
- Pan-American Life Ins. Co. v. PeeblesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941