Pearson v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court- of Marengo. This was an action of assumpsit in the court below by the plaintiff in err.or as assignee against the defendant, as assign- or of a promissory note. The note fell due 1st January, 1837. The plaintiff sued out a writ against the maker returnable to' the February term of the County Court of Marengo, that being the county in which he resided, and the first court to which suit could be brought.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court- of Marengo. This was an action of assumpsit in the court below by the plaintiff in err.or as assignee against the defendant, as assign- or of a promissory note. The note fell due 1st January, 1837. The plaintiff sued out a writ against the maker returnable to' the February term of the County Court of Marengo, that being the county in which he resided, and the first court to which suit could be brought. The writ being returned not found, the plaintiff did not sue out an alias, but dismissed the suit and commenced a suit returnable to the March term, 1837, of…
1Opinion of the Court
ORMOND J.
— The judgment of the court below is defended in this court on the ground that the 12th and 16th sections of the law by-which this proceeding is governed, Aik. Dig. 329, 30, must be considered together; and that considered in con*737nection it is plain that the Legislature . intended that the suit which was required to be brought to the first court to which suit can can be brought, should be prosecuted to a return of “ no property found.”
In this case a suit was brought to the proper court, and at the proper time, and the writ being returned non est, the plaintiff dismissed the suit and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Woodcock v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lindsay v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- N. & H. Weed & Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848