Dupree v. Smith
Supreme Court of Alabama
THE defendant in error on the first day of October, 1839; caused to be issued from the Circuit Court of Cherokee, a writ of capias ad respondendum, against the defendants, with a view to the rocovery of a promissory note, of the following tenor: “ $120. — On or before the first day of February, 1839, we promise to pay Silas Smith, or bearer, the sum of one hundi’ed and twenty dollars, for value received, this 8th February, 183-8. William S. Dupree, Wade Hampton.”
Read the full summary
THE defendant in error on the first day of October, 1839; caused to be issued from the Circuit Court of Cherokee, a writ of capias ad respondendum, against the defendants, with a view to the rocovery of a promissory note, of the following tenor: “ $120. — On or before the first day of February, 1839, we promise to pay Silas Smith, or bearer, the sum of one hundi’ed and twenty dollars, for value received, this 8th February, 183-8. William S. Dupree, Wade Hampton.” On this writ, the sheriff made the following indorsements: “Came to hand 1st Oct. 1839. Executed the 2d Oct. 1839. M. H. Hughes,…
1Opinion of the Court
' COLLIER, C. J.
Though the first writ is returned executed generally, we must consider it as served on Hampton alone, because the Sheriff returns specially that Dupree was not found. And the object of the second writ although it is not professedly an alias, was intended to bring Dupree before the court.— In this view of the case, the spring term 1840, was obviously, the appearance term, and the first at which the parties could make up their pleadings.
The adjourned term of the court holden in July, 1840, at which the judgment was rendered, was but a continuation of the preceding term, so that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re DoyleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Teat v. CockeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868