Anderson v. Dickson
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County'Court of Marengo. Debt, by the plaintiff against the defendants in error, upon a bond in the penal sum of $8,000, made by the latter, to the former under the statute, for the prosecution of an action of detinue for certain slaves.
Read the full summary
Error to the County'Court of Marengo. Debt, by the plaintiff against the defendants in error, upon a bond in the penal sum of $8,000, made by the latter, to the former under the statute, for the prosecution of an action of detinue for certain slaves. The declaration, after reciting the obligatory part of the bond, proceeds to recite the condition, “ to wit: That is, the said John Dickson had, on "the day of the date of said bond, issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Marengo County, a writ in detinue, as guardian of William J. White, and Thomas D. White, returnable to…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
Our statute authorizing the plaintiff to assign as many breaches as he thinks proper, Clay’s Dig. 330, § 97, is a transcript of the 8 and 9 Wm. 3, c. 3, under which it has always been held, that the plaintiff may sue for the penalty of the bond, and need not assign breaches until the defendant craved oyer of the condition of the bond, and pleaded performance. [Gainesford v. Griffith, 1 Saunders, 72, in note.] But the learned commentator upon Saunders suggests, that the better plan is to set out the condition, and assign breaches in the declaration. When' that is the course pursued, as in this…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Baker v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1873
- Kirby v. ForbesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Union Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1932