Snoddy v. Watt
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Madison. Action by Mary Watt against Shoddy for ail unlawful detainer, commenced berore a justice of the peace, and removed by the defendant to the Circuit Court by certiorari.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Madison. Action by Mary Watt against Shoddy for ail unlawful detainer, commenced berore a justice of the peace, and removed by the defendant to the Circuit Court by certiorari. The complaint is in these terms, to wit: “ The undersigned, Mary Watt, represents that Nathaniel H. Sno'ddy, of the county of Madison, unlawfully detains from her a tract of land, in the county aforesaid, containing 320 acres, it being the same on which Alezander G. Watt formerly resided, and which was once sold by the undersigned, Mary Watt, to the said Snoddy, and being the same tract or…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
1. The rule in this court is, that the complaint in actions for forcible entry or a detainer will not be looked to for defects, unless a demurrer was interposed and overruled in the court below. [Hilliard v. Carr, 6 Ala. Rep. 557; Wright v. Lyle, 4 Ib. 112.] Here the defendant’s demurrer was sustained, and if the amendments were not satisfactory, he should have demurred again. In the cases just cited, we held, however, if the defect in the description of the premises recovered was so uncertain, that no judgment could be rendered for any particular premises, a reversal would be the consequence.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sturdevant v. Heirs of MurrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Hilliard v. CarrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
3Cited by3 opinions
- Giddens v. BollingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Jonsen v. NabringSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Parker v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1923