Norwood v. Rossiter
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Wilcox. THIS action was commenced in the Court below, by attachment, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, and one Edwin Allen, on an instrument of writing not under, seal; by which the latter' agreed to discharge, pay and satisfy, certain debts due by the defendant in error, and the said Allen, under the firm of Rossiter & Allen.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Wilcox. THIS action was commenced in the Court below, by attachment, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, and one Edwin Allen, on an instrument of writing not under, seal; by which the latter' agreed to discharge, pay and satisfy, certain debts due by the defendant in error, and the said Allen, under the firm of Rossiter & Allen. The attachment was levied on the property of the plaintiff in error alone, but the declaration is against both the plaintiff in error and Alien. A discontinuance was afterwards entered as to Allen. The plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The instrument sued on in this ease, is not embraced in the statute of 1818, (Aikin’s Digest, 267,) by its terms, as it is neithera “bond, bill, covenant or promissory note.” If the question was open in this- Court, we should be inclined to think this case within the equity and meaning of the statute, though without the letter; but we feel ourselves precluded from putting, that construction on it, by the decision of this Court, in Thompson v. Saffold, (2 Stewart, 494,) and Tindall v. Collins, (2 Porter, 17,) which cannot be distinguished from this case. As by the common, law, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thompson v. SaffoldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1830
- Tindall v. CollinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835