Moore v. Carr, 7 Div. 84.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 84. |
| Citation | 224 Ala. 275,139 So. 269 |
| Parties | MOORE v. CARR, JUDGE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1932.
Original petition of H. D. Moore for mandamus to Hon. R. B. Carr, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Talladega County.
Writ awarded.
Rutherford Lapsley, of Anniston, for petitioner.
Knox Acker, Sterne & Liles, of Anniston, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks by this mandamus proceeding (Ex parte Holzer, 219 Ala 431, 122 So. 421) to vacate the order of the circuit judge transferring his case against the Sinclair Refining Company from the law to the equity side of the docket. The suit at law sought to recover damages for breach of contract and for negligent installation of gasoline equipment. The petition for removal to the equity docket was based upon the averments therein contained disclosing damages suffered by the defendant in the law action as the result of a trespass quare clausum fregit, and also trespass de bonis asportatis.
It may freely be conceded the allegations of the removal petition disclose a case for recovery of punitive damages by the defendant in the action at law which, sounding in damages merely, are excluded from our set-off statute. Section 10172, Code 1923; Norton v. Bumpus, 221 Ala. 167, 127 So 907; Nelms v. Hill, 85 Ala. 583, 5 So. 344; Walker v. McCoy, 34 Ala. 659; Rosser v Bunn, 66 Ala. 89. But so conceded, the petition does not present an equitable defense, as it is the established rule that exemplary damages are not awarded in equity (17 Corpus Juris, 971; 21 Corpus Juris, 59), a rule recognized by our decisions, as in Pulliam v. Owen, 25 Ala. 492, where is the language: "but unliquidated damages, sounding in tort, are not the subject of set-off in either court." See, also Betts v. Gunn, 31 Ala. 219; Chambers v. Wright, 52 Ala. 444; Gafford v. Proskauer, 59 Ala. 264.
In Tate v. Evans, 54 Ala. 16, speaking to the matter of equitable set-off the court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coca-Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories
...Cir., 202 F. 728; Hennessy v. Wilmerding-Loewe Co., C.C.N.D.Cal., 103 F. 90; Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill., 2 F.2d 473; Moore v. Carr, 224 Ala. 275, 139 So. 269; Littlejohn v. Grand I. B. of Locomotive Engineers, 92 Colo. 275, 20 P.2d 311; Winthrop Chemical Co. v. Blackman, 288 N.Y.S. ......
-
Superior Const. Co. v. Elmo
...94 F.Supp. 721; Hennessy v. Wilmerding-Loewe Co., C.C.N.D.Cal., 103 F. 90; Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.Ill., 2 F.2d 473; Moore v. Carr, 224 Ala. 275, 139 So. 269; Littlejohn v. Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 92 Colo. 275, 20 P.2d 311; Fleischer v. James Drug Stor......
-
Orkin Exterminating Co. of South Fla., Inc. v. Truly Nolen, Inc., 59-12
...721; Hennessy v. Wilmerding-Loewe Co., C.C.N.D.Cal.1900, 103 F. 90; Taylor v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.N.D.Ill.1924, 2 F.2d 473; Moore v. Carr, 224 Ala. 275, 139 So. 269; Littlejohn v. Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 92 Colo. 275, 20 P.2d 311; Superior Construction Co. v......
-
Cortner v. Anderson, Clayton & Co.
...197 Ala. 273, 72 So. 617; Burnwell Coal Co. v. Setzer, 203 Ala. 395, 83 So. 139; Gunn v. Hardy, 130 Ala. 642, 31 So. 443; Moore v. Carr, 224 Ala. 275, 139 So. 269. contract was executed in October, 1929, and provided for the delivery of one thousand bales of cotton during each of the months......