Court Opinion

ID: 9694810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:55:08.681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:05.446583
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
COLEMAN, Justice.
On application for rehearing, appellee differs with our conclusion on original de*172liverance. We are of opinion that that conclusion is correct and that no useful purpose would be served by enlarging thereon.
Appellee also requests that we say whether or not an agent in a factual situation different from that set out in the record in this case is a merchandise broker within the meaning of the statute with which this case is concerned. This court has said:
“If we were to express an opinion based on facts not shown by the record in this case, that opinion would be dicta and would not be binding in subsequent cases. This court has quoted with approval the following statement of this rule:
“ * * It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit, when the very point is presented for decision. * * *’ State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Murphy, 237 Ala. 332, 341, 186 So. 487, 496, 121 A.L.R. 283.
“When another case involving different facts comes before us, it will be our duty to decide that case according to the law applicable to the facts then presented.” Wilkinson v. Rowe, 266 Ala. 675, 680, 681, 98 So.2d 435, 440.
At appellee’s request, we cite the Pennsylvania and Illinois cases which appear to be contrary to our holding in the case at bar: Jones v. City of Pittsburgh, 176 Pa.Super. 154, 106 A.2d 892; City of Chicago v. Dollarhide, 255 Ill.App. 350; Linehan v. City of Chicago, 227 Ill.App. 255.
Opinion extended. Application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, SIMPSON, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ-, concur.