Court Opinion

ID: 9935085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:55:18.849224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:04.152008
License: Public Domain

As the author of the opinion in Montgomery I, I apologize for the confusion that opinion caused the trial court and the parties.
This Court held that the trial court could not find that the issuance of the 50 shares of stock in Hughes pledged to *Page 103 
Montgomery was constitutionally void and that, therefore, Montgomery could proceed under Ala. Code 1975, § 7-8-210(c) or (d). The confusion is caused by the dicta concerning what Montgomery could do in the event he could not proceed under §7-8-210 because the issuance of the stock was void by reason of a constitutional provision. To compound dicta, I believe that if he could have proceeded under § 7-1-103 Montgomery would have been limited in damages to the value that the last purchaser for value paid for each share of Hughes's stock, times the number of shares Montgomery had (50). If Hughes could not have complied with §7-8-210(c), Montgomery's damages would have been the same under §7-8-210(d), or under "the principles of law and equity," Ala. Code 1975, § 7-1-103.