Harrison v. Cassity
Supreme Court of Alabama
IN this case the writ of capias was returnable to the Superior Court of Clarke County of the Mississippi Territory, on the 1st Monday of March, 1817. The first count in the •declaration was, Whereas said Robert, on &c. at &c. did owe and was indebted to said James in the sum of $300— stating an indebitaiis assumpsit,' and a super se assumpsit thereon, but stating no consideration.
Read the full summary
IN this case the writ of capias was returnable to the Superior Court of Clarke County of the Mississippi Territory, on the 1st Monday of March, 1817. The first count in the •declaration was, Whereas said Robert, on &c. at &c. did owe and was indebted to said James in the sum of $300— stating an indebitaiis assumpsit,' and a super se assumpsit thereon, but stating no consideration. The second count was an indebitatis assumpsit for $300, the price of a mare sold by plaintiff to defendant — general issue. ' The continuances from term to term were regularly entered on the Record, except that of…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Minor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
As to the first assignment- — -no consideration is shewn iri the first count, and it is deemed insufficient. We are not satisfied even that the statement of title in the second count is defective. If the sale of the- mare had been completed, the delivery was not necessary to the right of action for the price. Although the statement may be defective, it is evidently cured by the verdict.
In the English Courts it seems to have been considered as a settled rule in civil actions, that where there are several counts in the declaration, entire damages…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bailey v. FreemanNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Phetteplace v. SteereNew York Supreme Court · 1807