McCoy v. Prince
| Decision Date | 30 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 288 |
| Citation | 73 So. 386,197 Ala. 665 |
| Parties | McCOY v. PRINCE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; John H. Miller, Judge.
Detinue by Robert McCoy against L.F. Prince. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to Court of Appeals, which transferred appeal under section 6, Acts 1911, p. 449, to Supreme Court. Reversed and remanded.
R.L. Blanton, of Haleyville, for appellant.
Mayhall & Stagner, of Haleyville, for appellee.
This case was decided, upon a former appeal, by the Court of Appeals, and is reported in 11 Ala.App. 388, 66 So. 950. We think that the legal questions involved were correctly set forth in the opinion of said court, and need add nothing to what was there said in order to dispose of the present appeal.
It is true that the opinion conflicts in one particular with an expression in the opinion in the case of Hafer v. Cole, 176 Ala. at the top of page 247, 57 So. 757, but we think that the Court of Appeals properly treated the expression as dicta. It did not relate directly to the point involved, was arguendo, and merely stated the weight of authority, but failed to note the fact that such was not the rule as laid down by our own cases.
The ruling of the trial court in refusing the defendant's requested charges 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 was not in accord with the opinion upon the former appeal, and the judgment must be reversed. See opinion upon former appeal. Section 4298 of the Code of 1907, also the case of Hockensmith v. Winton, 11 Ala.App. 670,
66 So. 954, wherein a distinction is drawn between an action for deceit and the right to rescind a sale for false statements, and in which sections 4298, 4299, and 2469 of the Code were considered and discussed.
The trial court committed no reversible error in refusing the defendant's other requested charges, or in giving the plaintiff's requested charges.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Wood
...as to its dicta, we find expressions that we are bound, Johnston v. Mobile Hotel Co., 27 Ala.App. 145, 167 So. 595; contra, McCoy v. Prince, 197 Ala. 665, 73 So. 386. For a bewildering proliferation of the problem, see Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Brill, 243 Ala. 25, 9 So.2d 23, reversing this c......
-
Catanzano v. Hydinger
...925; Birmingham News Co. v. Fitzgerald, 222 Ala. 386, 133 So. 31; McCoy v. Prince, 11 Ala.App. 388, 66 So. 950, certiorari denied 197 Ala. 665, 73 So. 386; 27 R.C.L. 646. The test usually stated is that the covenants to be dependent must enter into the whole consideration, according to the ......
-
Cartwright v. Braly
...same rule was suggested in McCoy v. Prince, 11 Ala.App. 388, 395, 66 So. 950. These cases are referred to by this court in McCoy v. Prince, 197 Ala. 665, 73 So. 386. That involved rescission. These cases are out of harmony with the decisions of this court before and since these statutes app......
-
McKinnon v. State
...the utterances in that case touching misnomer are purely dictum and not binding on the court or the Court of Appeals. McCoy v. Prince, 197 Ala. 665, 73 So. 386; Wofford Oil v. Burgin, 11 Ala.App. 477, 66 So. 931. We note the utterances in the opinion of the Court of Appeals touching the ave......