Randolph v. Parish
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to Tuscaloosa Circuit court. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, — tried before Chapman, J. The defendant in error declared against the plaintiff, in the Circuit court of Tuscaloosa, as the drawer of a bill of exchange, of which he was also the drawee and acceptor.
Read the full summary
Error to Tuscaloosa Circuit court. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, — tried before Chapman, J. The defendant in error declared against the plaintiff, in the Circuit court of Tuscaloosa, as the drawer of a bill of exchange, of which he was also the drawee and acceptor. Judgment final was rendered by default, and the plaintiff having brought the chase here by writ of error, assigned— 1. That the judgment was rendered without the intervention of a jury to assess the damages. 2- That the judgment is for the recovery of a sum of money, larger than the record shows the plaintiff to be liable for.…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
1. In regard to the first question — in the case of Malone & Co. vs. Hathaway, (3 Stew. R. 29,) it was decided, that where the indorser of a promissory note suffered a judgment by default, there was no' necessity for submitting the case to a jury to assess damages. *78That the judgment was an admission, that the steps necessary to fix his liability, had all been taken, and that he was chargable for the amount of the note. The practice, as settled by the case cited, is coeval with the statute on which it is founded, and, we think, fully authorised by it.
■ 2. It was competent for the defendant,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wetumpka & Coosa Rail Road v. BinghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Henderson v. Howard, Copeland & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1841