operation of the general rule in Alabama

1930The only ease coming to our attention, where the fraud of the agent would not affect the general rule, is First National Bank of Birmingham v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476 , 14 So. 335 , 27 L.

1929Nolen v. East, 181 Ala. 226 , 61 So. 261 .

1929Nolen v. East, 181 Ala. 226 , 61 So. 261 .

1912The plaintiff, when he received his injuries, was crossing the street at a regular street crossing for pedestrians; and we find nothing in the disputed state of the facts which takes this case out of the operation of the general rule that negligence is not imputed, as a matter of law, to persons crossing a street at a regular crossing for pedestrians without stopping, looking, and listening for automobiles or other vehicles. — Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97 , 59 South. 597 . (1) The evidence was in dispute as to how the plaintiff held his umbrella on the occasion of the injury.

1912The plaintiff, when he received his injuries, was crossing the street at a regular street crossing for pedestrians; and we find nothing in the disputed state of the facts which takes this case out of the operation of the general rule that negligence is not imputed, as a matter of law, to persons crossing a street at a regular crossing for pedestrians without stopping, looking, and listening for automobiles or other vehicles. — Adler v. Martin, 179 Ala. 97 , 59 South. 597 . (1) The evidence was in dispute as to how the plaintiff held his umbrella on the occasion of the injury.

1898We have reached the conclusion, that the courts can make no exception, based on sound and just principles which would exclude railroad companies from the operation of the general rule, that in actions of ejectment at law the legal title must prevail.” — Hawkins v. Ross, 100 Ala. 459 ; Walker v. Murphy, 34 Ala. 591 ; Nelson v. Kelly, 91 Ala. 569 ; McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 468 ; Morgan v. Carey, 73 Ala. 222 ; McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714 .

1898We have reached the conclusion, that the courts can make no exception, based on sound and just principles which would exclude railroad companies from the operation of the general rule, that in actions of ejectment at law the legal title must prevail.” — Hawkins v. Ross, 100 Ala. 459 ; Walker v. Murphy, 34 Ala. 591 ; Nelson v. Kelly, 91 Ala. 569 ; McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 468 ; Morgan v. Carey, 73 Ala. 222 ; McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714 .

1898We have reached the conclusion, that the courts can make no exception, based on sound and just principles which would exclude railroad companies from the operation of the general rule, that in actions of ejectment at law the legal title must prevail.” — Hawkins v. Ross, 100 Ala. 459 ; Walker v. Murphy, 34 Ala. 591 ; Nelson v. Kelly, 91 Ala. 569 ; McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 468 ; Morgan v. Carey, 73 Ala. 222 ; McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714 .

1898We have reached the conclusion, that the courts can make no exception, based on sound and just principles which would exclude railroad companies from the operation of the general rule, that in actions of ejectment at law the legal title must prevail.” — Hawkins v. Ross, 100 Ala. 459 ; Walker v. Murphy, 34 Ala. 591 ; Nelson v. Kelly, 91 Ala. 569 ; McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 468 ; Morgan v. Carey, 73 Ala. 222 ; McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714 .

1898We have reached the conclusion, that the courts can make no exception, based on sound and just principles which would exclude railroad companies from the operation of the general rule, that in actions of ejectment at law the legal title must prevail.” — Hawkins v. Ross, 100 Ala. 459 ; Walker v. Murphy, 34 Ala. 591 ; Nelson v. Kelly, 91 Ala. 569 ; McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 468 ; Morgan v. Carey, 73 Ala. 222 ; McPherson v. Walters, 16 Ala. 714 .

1896As was said in Bercy v. Lavretta, supra: “Whoever relies on the exception, to relieve him from the operation of the general rule, must- state facts which show he is within the exception.” And as was said in Morrison v. Stevenson, supra: “In its nature and operation the statute creates an exception to the general statute of limitations — it withdraws a particular case, which otherwise would fall within the words and bar of the statute.

1896As was said in Bercy v. Lavretta, supra: “Whoever relies on the exception, to relieve him from the operation of the general rule, must- state facts which show he is within the exception.” And as was said in Morrison v. Stevenson, supra: “In its nature and operation the statute creates an exception to the general statute of limitations — it withdraws a particular case, which otherwise would fall within the words and bar of the statute.

1889Not having paid more than the amount for which he was absolutely liable, his estate is not entitled to contribution, unless there are circumstances which take the case out of the operation of the general rule. — Ex parte Gifford, 6 Ves. 805; Davies v. Humphries, 6 M. & W. 152; Lyttle v. Pope, 11 B.

1888We need only to refer to the following cases: Brigham v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 243 ; Union Refining Co. v. Barton, 77 Ala. 148 ; Pollock v. Gantt, 69 Ala. 373 ; Beck v. West, ante, p. 213.

1888We need only to refer to the following cases: Brigham v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 243 ; Union Refining Co. v. Barton, 77 Ala. 148 ; Pollock v. Gantt, 69 Ala. 373 ; Beck v. West, ante, p. 213.

1888We need only to refer to the following cases: Brigham v. Carlisle, 78 Ala. 243 ; Union Refining Co. v. Barton, 77 Ala. 148 ; Pollock v. Gantt, 69 Ala. 373 ; Beck v. West, ante, p. 213.

1887This principle was expressly decided in State v. Bradshaw, 60 Ala. 239 .

1886It would be both unjust and unreasonable to impute notice by mere construction under such circum stances, and such is tlie established rule of law on this subject. — Terrell v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 12 Ala. 502 ; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. 321 ; Wickersham v. Chicago Zinc Company ( 18 Kan. 481 ), 26 Amer.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1886It would be both unjust and unreasonable to impute notice by mere construction under such circum stances, and such is tlie established rule of law on this subject. — Terrell v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 12 Ala. 502 ; Lucas v. Bank of Darien, 2 Stew. 321 ; Wickersham v. Chicago Zinc Company ( 18 Kan. 481 ), 26 Amer.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1886Ev.,, § 528; Freeman on Judgments, § 257; Rakes v. Pope, 7 Ala. 161 ; Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300 ; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108 ; Patton v. Hamner, 33 Ala. 307 ; Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306 ; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129 ; Parker v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 429 ; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 559 ; Shuttlesworth v. Hughey, 9 Rich.

1879The fund in controversy accrued to the several claimants, legatees, under the will, or by descent; and, unless there be peculiar circumstances in this case, taking it out of the operation of the general rule, our statutes known as the ‘woman’s law’ having nothing to do with the case. — Kidd v. Montague, 19 Ala. 619 .

1878If there be nothing in this case to take it without the operation of the general rule, the position is well taken. — Me Cartney v. King, 25 Ala. 681 ; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Par. 134; Worthington v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 297 ; Burns v. Hamilton, 33 Ala. 210 ; Tudor v. Taylor, 26 Ver. 444; Dunn v. Frazier, 8 Blackf. 432 ; Anderson v. Faulks, 2 Harris & Gill, 346; Cameron v. Logan, 8 Iowa, 434 ; Fox v. Marsh, 3 W. & Serg., 444; Dean v. Morris, 4 Iowa, 312 ; Rodgers v. Smith, 2 Carter, Ind. 526; Mellen v. Boatman, 13 Sm. & Mar. 100; The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat, 516; Thompson v. Munger, 15 Tex. 523 .

1878If there be nothing in this case to take it without the operation of the general rule, the position is well taken. — Me Cartney v. King, 25 Ala. 681 ; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Par. 134; Worthington v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 297 ; Burns v. Hamilton, 33 Ala. 210 ; Tudor v. Taylor, 26 Ver. 444; Dunn v. Frazier, 8 Blackf. 432 ; Anderson v. Faulks, 2 Harris & Gill, 346; Cameron v. Logan, 8 Iowa, 434 ; Fox v. Marsh, 3 W. & Serg., 444; Dean v. Morris, 4 Iowa, 312 ; Rodgers v. Smith, 2 Carter, Ind. 526; Mellen v. Boatman, 13 Sm. & Mar. 100; The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat, 516; Thompson v. Munger, 15 Tex. 523 .

1878If there be nothing in this case to take it without the operation of the general rule, the position is well taken. — Me Cartney v. King, 25 Ala. 681 ; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Par. 134; Worthington v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 297 ; Burns v. Hamilton, 33 Ala. 210 ; Tudor v. Taylor, 26 Ver. 444; Dunn v. Frazier, 8 Blackf. 432 ; Anderson v. Faulks, 2 Harris & Gill, 346; Cameron v. Logan, 8 Iowa, 434 ; Fox v. Marsh, 3 W. & Serg., 444; Dean v. Morris, 4 Iowa, 312 ; Rodgers v. Smith, 2 Carter, Ind. 526; Mellen v. Boatman, 13 Sm. & Mar. 100; The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat, 516; Thompson v. Munger, 15 Tex. 523 .

1878If there be nothing in this case to take it without the operation of the general rule, the position is well taken. — Me Cartney v. King, 25 Ala. 681 ; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Par. 134; Worthington v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 297 ; Burns v. Hamilton, 33 Ala. 210 ; Tudor v. Taylor, 26 Ver. 444; Dunn v. Frazier, 8 Blackf. 432 ; Anderson v. Faulks, 2 Harris & Gill, 346; Cameron v. Logan, 8 Iowa, 434 ; Fox v. Marsh, 3 W. & Serg., 444; Dean v. Morris, 4 Iowa, 312 ; Rodgers v. Smith, 2 Carter, Ind. 526; Mellen v. Boatman, 13 Sm. & Mar. 100; The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat, 516; Thompson v. Munger, 15 Tex. 523 .

1878If there be nothing in this case to take it without the operation of the general rule, the position is well taken. — Me Cartney v. King, 25 Ala. 681 ; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Par. 134; Worthington v. McRoberts, 9 Ala. 297 ; Burns v. Hamilton, 33 Ala. 210 ; Tudor v. Taylor, 26 Ver. 444; Dunn v. Frazier, 8 Blackf. 432 ; Anderson v. Faulks, 2 Harris & Gill, 346; Cameron v. Logan, 8 Iowa, 434 ; Fox v. Marsh, 3 W. & Serg., 444; Dean v. Morris, 4 Iowa, 312 ; Rodgers v. Smith, 2 Carter, Ind. 526; Mellen v. Boatman, 13 Sm. & Mar. 100; The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat, 516; Thompson v. Munger, 15 Tex. 523 .