Hartwell v. Blocker
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of error to the Court of Chancery sitting at Mobile. On the 27th of February, 1843, the defendant in error filed his bill, setting forth that on the eighteenth of August, 1836, Eleazer Hartwell and John Hartwell were indebted to Abner S. Lipscomb and George W. Owen, since deceased, in the sum of sixteen hundred and five dollars, by six promissory notes, (particularly described,) ■ for different sums, payable at different times at the Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank of…
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the Court of Chancery sitting at Mobile. On the 27th of February, 1843, the defendant in error filed his bill, setting forth that on the eighteenth of August, 1836, Eleazer Hartwell and John Hartwell were indebted to Abner S. Lipscomb and George W. Owen, since deceased, in the sum of sixteen hundred and five dollars, by six promissory notes, (particularly described,) ■ for different sums, payable at different times at the Planters’ and Merchants’ Bank of Mobile. In order to secure the payment of these several notes, Eleazar and John Hartwell conveyed five tracts of land…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
It was said by Lord Hardwicke, that in pleading, “there must be the same strictness in equity as at law ” [2 Atk. Rep. 632.] But Mr. Justice Story says, “however true this may be as to a plea in equity, technically so called, it can hardly be affirmed to b? true in the framing of bills or answers, in respect to which more liberality prevails. And it may, perhaps, be correctly affirmed, that certainty to a common intent is *585the most that the rules of equity ordinarily require in pleadings for any purpose,” [Eq. Plead. 208.]
Uncertainty in a bill, it is said, may arise in various ways: L In the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cullum v. Batre's Ex'rxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
3Cited by3 opinions
- McGowan v. Branch Bank at MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Owen v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Hudson v. WrightAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911