| Ala. | Feb 11, 1915
The amended bill shows nothing more than an interstate transaction involving the sale and delivery in Alabama of a certain number of feet of lightning rods, to be delivered at the residence of the respondent, and to be used upon his barn, and therefore brings the transaction within the influence of the case of Dozier v. State of Alabama, 218 U.S. 124" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1910-05-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/dozier-v-alabama-97281?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="97281">218 U. S. 124, 30
The bill does aver that the lightning rod ivas placed upon the respondent’s barn the day of the delivery, and was to be paid for when so placed, and that it became an improvement or repair upon said barn, and which was essential to the fixing of a lien upon said barn and lot, and this averment was evidently for the purpose of showing a lien which the bill was seeking to enforce, and not to charge that it ivas to be erected by the complainant under the terms of the contract of sale so as to become an inseparable obligation thereunder, and thus bring the transaction under the influence of the case of Muller v. First Nat’l Bank of Dothan, 176 Ala. 229, 57 South. 762. Nor does the averment that the complainant was to be paid for the rods when placed upon the barn expressly charge or necessarily imply that it was a part of the complainant’s contractual duty to erect the rods upon the barn as a part of the contract of sale and purchase.
As the bill shows an interstate transaction, and does not charge the doing of business in Alabama such as to take it from the protection of interstate matters by doing business in Alabama, it was not. demurrable for
The decree of the chancery court sustaining the demurrer to the bill is" reversed, and one is here rendered overruling same, and the cause is remanded.
Reversed, rendered and remanded.