Peters v. Heydenfeldt
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. THIS was an action of assumpsit, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, as administrator of William Bryant.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. THIS was an action of assumpsit, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, as administrator of William Bryant. In the declaration, the defendant is charged as being indebted to the plaintiff, for the work and labor, care and diligence of the plaintiff, as attorney and counsellor at law of the defendant, in prosecuting, defending and soliciting divers causes, suits and business, for the defendant, as administrator of William Bryant, and for fees due him in respect thereof. The second count, on a quantum meruit, charges the services to…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The declaration shows very conclusively, that the action is founded on a contract made by the administrator, by which the estate could not be charged in this action, but for which he is individually responsible. The addition of “ administrator,” to his name in the writ and declaration, cannot vitiate, as for the reasons given, the declaration shows that he was not sued in that capacity. The addition, therefore, is a mere description of the person, and will not vitiate. It follows from this, that the judgment below-was correct, and it is therefore affirmed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Moore v. LeseurSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Arrington v. HairSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Anderson v. RiceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Averett v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849