Brown v. J. & T. Simpson
Supreme Court of Alabama
This was a proceeding by scire facias, in the County Court of Lauderdale county, in the name of John and Thomas Simpson, surviving partners of Alexander Me* Fadden against David Brown. Brown had become security in a bail bond, required of the defendant in an action of debt by said partners against William Ii. Middleton, previously commenced in said Court, and prosecuted to judgment against said Middleton.
Read the full summary
This was a proceeding by scire facias, in the County Court of Lauderdale county, in the name of John and Thomas Simpson, surviving partners of Alexander Me* Fadden against David Brown. Brown had become security in a bail bond, required of the defendant in an action of debt by said partners against William Ii. Middleton, previously commenced in said Court, and prosecuted to judgment against said Middleton. A capias ad satisfaciendum, tested t.he 1st day of faer, 1827, had issued on said judgment against ■“•**.£) ¡f returnable to a term of said County Court, to on A the first Monday in January,…
1Opinion of the Court
By LIPSCOMB, -Chief Justice.
There were many points made by the plaintiff in error in this case, only one of which will be noticed. It is contended that the capias ad satisfaciendum, issued against Middleton, the defendant in the original suit, is a void process, and that consequently Brown, the plaintiff in error, who was his bail, is not liable. By reference to the record, it will appear that a capias ad satisfaciendum issued on the 1st day of November, 1827, returnable to the next term of the Court, to be holden on the first Monday in January of the same year. There can be no doubt that a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McElhaney v. GillelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Hunt's Heirs v. Ellison's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Costley v. DriverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1871
- Leigh v. AlpaughSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1854