Swift v. Hill
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error from Eolias Circuit Court — Before the Hon. P. T. Harris. A motion was made in this ease, by defendant, Hill, to quash the writ of error, because it was brought in the name of Swift alone, for the purpose of reversing a judgment rendered on an appeal bond, against Swift and Harris. This record specifies no particular road, for failing to work on which, the party was sued.
Read the full summary
Error from Eolias Circuit Court — Before the Hon. P. T. Harris. A motion was made in this ease, by defendant, Hill, to quash the writ of error, because it was brought in the name of Swift alone, for the purpose of reversing a judgment rendered on an appeal bond, against Swift and Harris. This record specifies no particular road, for failing to work on which, the party was sued. We-insisted on two pleas — ■ that we were not apportioned as the law directs — and that we did not reside in thé beat. No person under the statute, is hound to work out of the beat where he resides, except when he is…
1Opinion of the Court
By Mr. Chief Justice Saffold :
The j udgment was rendered against Swift, and one William Harris, as his security in the appeal bond. The writ of error is prosecuted in the name of Swift alone; and now the defendant insists, that for’this cause, the writ be quashed.
If a joinder in error could be deemed material, there is none in this case.
This court has on several occasions recognised the principle which is fatal to this writ.—(See Caller vs. Brittain—Webster vs. Yancey, et al.—Eastland vs. Jones, et al.a In the latter case referred to, the facts were precisely the same as in this case.
Both…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Livingston v. Steam-Boat TallapoosaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
- Standley v. E. S. Jaffray & Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1869