Price Williams & Sons v. McConnico
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Conecuh. The record does not give the name of the presiding judge. The appellants, who were garnishees on an attachment suit instituted by the appellees, assign errors upon the record in this case, there being no bill of exceptions. The notice of garnishment served on them described the plain-stiff in the attachment suit, as guardians of two persons, .and the judgment is in favor of them as guardians of one of them only.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Conecuh. The record does not give the name of the presiding judge. The appellants, who were garnishees on an attachment suit instituted by the appellees, assign errors upon the record in this case, there being no bill of exceptions. The notice of garnishment served on them described the plain-stiff in the attachment suit, as guardians of two persons, .and the judgment is in favor of them as guardians of one of them only. The judgment entry against the garnishees, recites, that by the answer of garnishees,-there was due the .defendant in attachment, the sum of…
1Opinion of the CourtB. F. Saffold, J.
If the citation to the garnishee, (Revised Code, § 89M), ought to contain an accurate description of the capacity in which the plaintiff sues, the error objected to is amendable, the record being right in every other part, and- can not be presented for the first time in this court, after appearance in the court below.— Rev. Code, §§ 2809, 2810, 2811; Moore & Lyons v. Stainton, 22 Ala. 831; Daniel v. Hopper, 6 Ala. 296; Smith v. Chapman 6 Porter, 365.
Without proof of some contract or usage of trade, that commission merchants are merely depositaries, and not liable for interest until demand…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Moore v. StaintonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Smith v. Chapman & BrotherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Daniel v. HopperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tyree v. Parham'sSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880