From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alabama Fuel Iron Co. v. Vaughan

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 2, 1921
89 So. 624 (Ala. 1921)

Opinion

7 Div. 189.

June 2, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.

Percy, Benners Burr and J. R. Forman, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

The defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge as to count 3. 203 Ala. 461, 83 So. 323; 198 Ala. 469, 73 So. 648; 194 Ala. 278, 69 So. 952; 171 Ala. 251, 55 So. 170. Counsel discuss the question of damages, but, in view of the opinion, it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.

Frank S. Andress, of Birmingham, for appellee.

No brief reached the Reporter.


This case was submitted to the jury under issues consequent upon the averments of count 3 alone. The judgment below is reversed upon the authority of Ala. Fuel Iron Co. v. J. A. Vaughan, 205 Ala. 589, 88 So. 857.

It may be remarked that count 3 was defective in the particular that it failed to aver a duty on defendant to which the generally alleged negligence of the defendant was referable. T. C. I. Co. v. Smith, 171 Ala. 251, 55 So. 170. There is no intimation, even, in the count that these parties were related riparian proprietors, out of which relation there arose certain rights, duties, and responsibilities.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

ANDERSON, C J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Alabama Fuel Iron Co. v. Vaughan

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 2, 1921
89 So. 624 (Ala. 1921)
Case details for

Alabama Fuel Iron Co. v. Vaughan

Case Details

Full title:ALABAMA FUEL IRON CO. v. VAUGHAN

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jun 2, 1921

Citations

89 So. 624 (Ala. 1921)
206 Ala. 156

Citing Cases

Whistle Bottling Co. v. Searson

The second count was subject to the demurrers. 89 So. 624; 205 Ala. 589, 88 So. 857. The manufacturer is not…