Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Bartee, 6 Div. 71.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation139 So. 294,224 Ala. 276
Docket Number6 Div. 71.
Decision Date14 January 1932

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1932.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Lange, Simpson & Brantley, of Birmingham, for petitioner.

J. K. Taylor and Chas. W. Greer, both of Birmingham, for respondent.


Petition of the Southern Building & Loan Association for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Essie Bartee, 139 So. 293.

Upon the question of rescission, argued by petitioner, we prefer to rest a denial of the writ upon the second reason stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals under the cited case of Heide v. Capital Securities Co., 200 Ala. 397, 76 So. 313, to the effect that any offer to return the $3 "interest" or "dividend" received, would have been futile and an unnecessary ceremony-a question not involved or discussed in Americanized Finance Corp. v. Yarborough (Ala. Sup.) 135 So. 448, and Mutual Loan Soc. v. Letson, 202 Ala. 683, 81 So. 659, cited by petitioner.

Writ denied.


To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bankers' Mortg. Bond Co. v. Rosenthal
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 27 Octubre 1932
    ......135 BANKERS' MORTG. BOND CO. v. ROSENTHAL. 6 Div. 987.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 27, 1932 ...Johnston,. 211 Ala. 99, 99 So. 839; Southern Ry. Co. v. Cates,. 211 Ala. 282, 100 So. 356; ...So, also, of the dividends. Southern Building & Loan. Ass'n v. Bartee, 224 Ala. 276, 139 So. ......
  • American Life Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Aladdin Temple Ben. Ass'n, D.O.K.K., 6 Div. 526.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 Junio 1939
    ...Co. v. Rosenthal, 226 Ala. 135, 145 So. 456 (6); Southern B. & L. Ass'n v. Bartee, 24 Ala.App. 555, 139 So. 293, certiorari denied, 224 Ala. 276, 139 So. 294. So according to the admission in the defendant's evidence, plaintiff was entitled to recover at least the $500, with interest, unles......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT