From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shelby Iron Co. v. Bean

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 26, 1922
93 So. 906 (Ala. 1922)

Opinion

7 Div. 335.

October 26, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; A. B. Foster, Judge.

Leeper, Haynes Wallace, of Columbiana, for appellant.

A count under subdivision 1 of section 3910 of the Code must specify and name the defect with such particularity as to inform the defendant of what he must defend. 122 Ala. 118, 26 So. 124; 164 Ala. 125, 51 So. 397, 137 Am. St. Rep. 31; 183 Ala. 315, 62 So. 804; 171 Ala. 251, 55 So. 170.

Longshore Koening and Riddle Ellis, all of Columbiana, for appellee.

Where a pleading in a negligence case shows a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff, and a breach thereof, to plaintiff's injury, very general averments of negligence are sufficient. 204 Ala. 607, 86 So. 908; 171 Ala. 251, 55 So. 170.


This is the second appeal in the course of the litigation. Shelby Iron Co. v. Bean, 203 Ala. 79, 82 So. 93. A satisfactory statement of the case there appears.

Of the errors assigned there is in the brief for appellant sufficient insistence to invoke review upon only one assignment, viz. that predicated of the action of the court in overruling appellant's demurrer to the amended count A, drawn to state a cause of action under subdivision 1, § 3910, Code. The amended count described the defect alleged as consisting of a defective furnace stack, thereby, after reversal on formal appeal, removing the fault that (on original consideration) was found to affect the count. After the amendment stated the count was not too general in respect of efficient description of the defect averred. The cases cited on brief for appellant do not invite a different conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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


Summaries of

Shelby Iron Co. v. Bean

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 26, 1922
93 So. 906 (Ala. 1922)
Case details for

Shelby Iron Co. v. Bean

Case Details

Full title:SHELBY IRON CO. v. BEAN

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Oct 26, 1922

Citations

93 So. 906 (Ala. 1922)
93 So. 906

Citing Cases

Riley v. Chancey Bros

The averments of the complaint set forth a complete cause of action under the statute, and demurrer was…

Lipscomb v. Paul

This plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery or plant…