Durden v. Cleveland
Supreme Court of Alabama
Whit of Error to the Circuit Court of Autauga county. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit on a promissory note for five hundred dollars, and it appears from the record that two other cases were consolidated with this,but the transcript does not contain the declarations filed in those cases. The defendant pleaded non-assupsit, payment, want and failure of consideration, and the plaintiff had judgment upon a verdict returned in his favor on these issues.
Read the full summary
Whit of Error to the Circuit Court of Autauga county. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit on a promissory note for five hundred dollars, and it appears from the record that two other cases were consolidated with this,but the transcript does not contain the declarations filed in those cases. The defendant pleaded non-assupsit, payment, want and failure of consideration, and the plaintiff had judgment upon a verdict returned in his favor on these issues. In the progress of the trial the defendant offered to read in evidence a certified copy of a bill in equity, filed against him by the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
1. The rejection of the copy of the bill in equity between these parties when offered as evidence *227to establish the identity of the notes sued on with those described in the written instrument, afterwards before the jury, is not a matter of importance in its connection with the case, because this identity could have no influence unless some defence was made out.
But conceding that the fact of identity was material, it could not be thus established. The established rule is now to consider a bill in equity as the mere allegation of counsel, unless the party is connected with it by proof, showing…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Adams v. M'MillanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
3Cited by5 opinions
- Duff v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- McLemore v. NuckollsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Church v. SheltonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1855
- Richardson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Vanneman v. Swedesboro Loan & Building Ass'nNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1886