Granberry v. Wellborn
Supreme Court of Alabama
Wkxt of Error to the Circuit Court of Barbour. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought by the defendant in .error. The writ was issued against Granberry and Wm, B. Deloach, as makers of the note, requiring them to answer the plaintiff, for the use of John P. Huntingdon, and was served on the defendant only. No return was made as to Deloach.
Read the full summary
Wkxt of Error to the Circuit Court of Barbour. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought by the defendant in .error. The writ was issued against Granberry and Wm, B. Deloach, as makers of the note, requiring them to answer the plaintiff, for the use of John P. Huntingdon, and was served on the defendant only. No return was made as to Deloach. The declaration is in the plaintiff’s name, for the use of Elliott Huntingdon, and contains the common counts in addition to a count on the note, against the defendant only,discontinuing the action as to Deloach,on whom it states…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
It has been repeatedly holden,that where the common counts in assumpsit ar'e added to a count on a note, that the plaintiff may take a final judgment by default, although no particular disposition is made -of the common counts. The amount of the recovery, however, should not exceed the sum expressed in the note with interest. [Graves v. Lake, at this term, and cases there cited.] It is objected that in the present case, the judgment falls short of the note, five hundred dollars, and it cannot be intended that it is for the money thereby promised to be paid. This argument is not defensible.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Elliott v. Smith & Co. ex rel. HarralsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Teer v. SandfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840