long-recognized rule in Alabama

1980Thus applied, the Rule is a restatement of the long recognized rule of evidence that statements of a party which are inconsistent with his claim in litigation are substantively admissible against him." (Citations omitted)'" 52 Ala. App., at p. 644 , 296 So.2d at p. 732 .

1980Thus applied, the Rule is a restatement of the long recognized rule of evidence that statements of a party which are inconsistent with his claim in litigation are substantively admissible against him." (Citations omitted)'" 52 Ala. App., at p. 644 , 296 So.2d at p. 732 .

1945The long-recognized rule has been that under such circumstances, *418 when any one assignment is not well taken, then no reversible error is made to appear: City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472 , 94 So. 337 ; Wells Co. v. Lane, 217 Ala. 10 , 115 So. 77 ; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456 , 102 So. 629 ; Sovereign Camp, W.

1945The long-recognized rule has been that under such circumstances, *418 when any one assignment is not well taken, then no reversible error is made to appear: City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472 , 94 So. 337 ; Wells Co. v. Lane, 217 Ala. 10 , 115 So. 77 ; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456 , 102 So. 629 ; Sovereign Camp, W.

1945The long-recognized rule has been that under such circumstances, *418 when any one assignment is not well taken, then no reversible error is made to appear: City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472 , 94 So. 337 ; Wells Co. v. Lane, 217 Ala. 10 , 115 So. 77 ; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456 , 102 So. 629 ; Sovereign Camp, W.

1945The long-recognized rule has been that under such circumstances, *418 when any one assignment is not well taken, then no reversible error is made to appear: City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472 , 94 So. 337 ; Wells Co. v. Lane, 217 Ala. 10 , 115 So. 77 ; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456 , 102 So. 629 ; Sovereign Camp, W.

1945The long-recognized rule has been that under such circumstances, *418 when any one assignment is not well taken, then no reversible error is made to appear: City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472 , 94 So. 337 ; Wells Co. v. Lane, 217 Ala. 10 , 115 So. 77 ; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456 , 102 So. 629 ; Sovereign Camp, W.

1945The long-recognized rule has been that under such circumstances, *418 when any one assignment is not well taken, then no reversible error is made to appear: City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472 , 94 So. 337 ; Wells Co. v. Lane, 217 Ala. 10 , 115 So. 77 ; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456 , 102 So. 629 ; Sovereign Camp, W.

1935In Blumberg v. Speilberger, 209 Ala. 278, 280 , 96 So. 191, 192 , the long-recognized rule is quoted with approval: “In Brahan & Atwood [v. Ragland], 3 Stew. 247 , and later in Sherrod v. Rhodes, 5 Ala. 683, 691 , it was held that— “ ‘The fact merely, that two or more persons were successive accommodation indorsers for another, did not make them cosureties, but that to constitute that relation there must be an agreement between them to that effect, or some fact or circumstance must exist from which it may be inferred that they intended to be bound as cosureties, although they have not signed t

1935In Blumberg v. Speilberger, 209 Ala. 278, 280 , 96 So. 191, 192 , the long-recognized rule is quoted with approval: “In Brahan & Atwood [v. Ragland], 3 Stew. 247 , and later in Sherrod v. Rhodes, 5 Ala. 683, 691 , it was held that— “ ‘The fact merely, that two or more persons were successive accommodation indorsers for another, did not make them cosureties, but that to constitute that relation there must be an agreement between them to that effect, or some fact or circumstance must exist from which it may be inferred that they intended to be bound as cosureties, although they have not signed t

1935In Blumberg v. Speilberger, 209 Ala. 278, 280 , 96 So. 191, 192 , the long-recognized rule is quoted with approval: “In Brahan & Atwood [v. Ragland], 3 Stew. 247 , and later in Sherrod v. Rhodes, 5 Ala. 683, 691 , it was held that— “ ‘The fact merely, that two or more persons were successive accommodation indorsers for another, did not make them cosureties, but that to constitute that relation there must be an agreement between them to that effect, or some fact or circumstance must exist from which it may be inferred that they intended to be bound as cosureties, although they have not signed t

1935In Blumberg v. Speilberger, 209 Ala. 278, 280 , 96 So. 191, 192 , the long-recognized rule is quoted with approval: “In Brahan & Atwood [v. Ragland], 3 Stew. 247 , and later in Sherrod v. Rhodes, 5 Ala. 683, 691 , it was held that— “ ‘The fact merely, that two or more persons were successive accommodation indorsers for another, did not make them cosureties, but that to constitute that relation there must be an agreement between them to that effect, or some fact or circumstance must exist from which it may be inferred that they intended to be bound as cosureties, although they have not signed t

1935In Blumberg v. Speilberger, 209 Ala. 278, 280 , 96 So. 191, 192 , the long-recognized rule is quoted with approval: “In Brahan & Atwood [v. Ragland], 3 Stew. 247 , and later in Sherrod v. Rhodes, 5 Ala. 683, 691 , it was held that— “ ‘The fact merely, that two or more persons were successive accommodation indorsers for another, did not make them cosureties, but that to constitute that relation there must be an agreement between them to that effect, or some fact or circumstance must exist from which it may be inferred that they intended to be bound as cosureties, although they have not signed t

1935Bank of Louisville, 170 Ky. 810 , 186 S.W. 937 , 940: “In this connection it is argued that the defendant and the other indorsers were joint indorsers, and that a failure to give notice to the other indorsers released the defendant.

1935Bank of Louisville, 170 Ky. 810 , 186 S.W. 937 , 940: “In this connection it is argued that the defendant and the other indorsers were joint indorsers, and that a failure to give notice to the other indorsers released the defendant.

1934Moreover, in the recent case of Hatton v. Moseley, 156 So. 546 , 1 this court ha® reviewed the cases, and re-announced the long-recognized rule that bills in equity to cancel judgments or judicial proceedings at law for fraud are bills in the nature of bills of review and by analogy are barred by the limitation of three years, with proviso giving one year after discovery of the fraud.

1929We have carefully considered the cases relied upon by counsel for appellant (Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42 ; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17 , 29 So. 569 ; Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219 , 115 So. 308 ; Nelson v. State, 130 Ala. 83 , 30 So. 728 ), but entertain the view that these authorities do not militate in any manner against the conclusion here reached.

1929We have carefully considered the cases relied upon by counsel for appellant (Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42 ; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17 , 29 So. 569 ; Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219 , 115 So. 308 ; Nelson v. State, 130 Ala. 83 , 30 So. 728 ), but entertain the view that these authorities do not militate in any manner against the conclusion here reached.

1929We have carefully considered the cases relied upon by counsel for appellant (Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42 ; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17 , 29 So. 569 ; Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219 , 115 So. 308 ; Nelson v. State, 130 Ala. 83 , 30 So. 728 ), but entertain the view that these authorities do not militate in any manner against the conclusion here reached.

1929We have carefully considered the cases relied upon by counsel for appellant (Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42 ; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17 , 29 So. 569 ; Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219 , 115 So. 308 ; Nelson v. State, 130 Ala. 83 , 30 So. 728 ), but entertain the view that these authorities do not militate in any manner against the conclusion here reached.

1929We have carefully considered the cases relied upon by counsel for appellant (Henry v. State, 79 Ala. 42 ; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17 , 29 So. 569 ; Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219 , 115 So. 308 ; Nelson v. State, 130 Ala. 83 , 30 So. 728 ), but entertain the view that these authorities do not militate in any manner against the conclusion here reached.