Drinkard
v.
Premier Refining Co.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Court of Appeals of AlabamaApr 5, 1921
90 So. 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 1921)
90 So. 5418 Ala. App. 109

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Garnett v. Scott

    …Co. v. Inter. Sugar Feed Co., 188 Ala. 232, 66 So. 479; Oliver v. Kinney, 173 Ala. 593, 56 So. 203; Sparks v.…

  • Frazier v. Dismuke

    …This must affirmatively appear from the record. Parsons Lumber Co. v. West-Steagall G. M. Co., 163 Ala. 594,…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

8 Div. 724.

April 5, 1921.

Appeal from Morgan County Court; W.T. Lowe, Judge.

Assumpsit by the Premier Refining Company against T.E. Drinkard. There was judgment by default, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

E.W. Godbey, of Decatur, for appellant.

The court erred in rendering judgment with proof of the debt. 25 Ala. 451; 128 Ala. 332, 29 So. 10; 38 Ala. 344; 67 Ala. 252; 76 Ala. 373; 163 Ala. 594, 50 So. 1034; 156 Ala. 573, 47 So. 307.

Wert Hudson, of Decatur, for appellee.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


The complaint was in two counts, claiming for goods sold and delivered and on open count. Neither count was an instrument in writing or verified account ascertaining the plaintiff's demands. Code 3970 and 3971, §§ 5356, 5325. And the judgment being by default, without the intervention of a jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Rhea v. Holston Salt P. Co., 59 Ala. 182; Parsons Lbr. Co. v. West Co. et al., 163 Ala. 594, 50 So. 1034.

There are other questions in the record, but we think a decision of them is unnecessary.

Reversed and remanded.