Jordan v. Loftin
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Twelfth Chancery District. Before the Hon. A. Crenshaw, Chancellor. 1. This is not a bill for discovery, but for relief.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Twelfth Chancery District. Before the Hon. A. Crenshaw, Chancellor. 1. This is not a bill for discovery, but for relief. The defence could not have been made at law, unless by a bill of discovery, and if the discovery sought was denied, the party would have been without remedy, Steele v. Lowry and McGehee, 6 Ala, 124, 2. The defence is one that could not, under the facts, have been made at law, as Hill, the witness, was incompetent in .the suit at law, by reason of his being a party, and not as the chancellor supposed, upon the grounds of interest. Turner v. Lazarus, 6 Ala.…
1Opinion of the CourtDargan, J.
The plaintiff in error, filed his bill in equity, against the defendants, in which he alledges, that on the 12th of January, 1844, John Hill applied to him, to become his security to Joseph Loftin, for the sum of $50 50, and informed him, that John Buck would join on a note for that *549sum, as a co-security. That he consented to become bound as the security of Hill, jointly with Buck, and that Hill and complainant, went to the house of Loftin, for the purpose of executing a note for that sum, but that Buck was not present to join in the note, and complainant, in the presence of Hill and Loftin,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- French v. GarnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Hill v. M'NeillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1839
3Cited by7 opinions
- Westman v. KrumweideSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Elastic Tip Co. v. GrahamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Williams v. Mitchell's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Stevens v. HertzlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Chappell v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.