Moore v. Burns & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison. Tried before the Hon. Lotus Wveth. cited 1 Chitty’s Pleadings, 256; Reid & Go. v. McLeod, 20 Ala. 576; Lanford, v. Patton, L)anegan & Go., 44 Ala. 584; Rhea v. Raidings, 3 Or.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison. Tried before the Hon. Lotus Wveth. cited 1 Chitty’s Pleadings, 256; Reid & Go. v. McLeod, 20 Ala. 576; Lanford, v. Patton, L)anegan & Go., 44 Ala. 584; Rhea v. Raidings, 3 Or. C. C. 256; 1 Penn. 75, 137; 5 Halst. 295; Bartlett v. Cromer, 17 Johns. 439; 8 Ind. 451; 2 Stew. 506 ; 9 Pick. 546. The statute dispenses with proof of the names of persons composing the partnership which is plaintiff, unless they are denied by plea verified by affidavit. — Code of 1876, § 3038. In pleading, it is a general rule, that it is not necessary to allege what it is not…
1Opinion of the CourtManning, J.
The suit in this cause was brought iu the name of “Burns & Company,” who in the complaint are called the plaintiffs ; and there was a judgment by default. There is nothing in the record indicating that this is the name of a corporation. Evidently, it is the style under which certain persons are or were associated together, probaby as partners in business. But it is not anywhere shown who are the individuals that are or were associated together under that name. They did not bring this suit and make themselves, as parties thereto, amenable to the jurisdiction and orders of the court.
Only a…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Long v. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Conn v. SellersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Yarbrough & Co. v. Bush & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Phillips v. HolmesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Barksdale v. Strickland & HazardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.