Doe ex dem. Leverich & Co. v. Bates
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal, from the Circuit Court of Mobile. This was an action of ejectment for the reeovery of a lot, with its appurtenances, situate in the city of Mobile. The cause was tried, under the usual consent rule, on the plea of “Not guilty”; a statement of facts was agreed to by the parties, and the court substituted instead of the jury. A judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from the Circuit Court of Mobile. This was an action of ejectment for the reeovery of a lot, with its appurtenances, situate in the city of Mobile. The cause was tried, under the usual consent rule, on the plea of “Not guilty”; a statement of facts was agreed to by the parties, and the court substituted instead of the jury. A judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant for costs. From the case agreed, it appears that the plaintiffs’ lessors recovered a judgment, at the J une Term of the county court of Mobile, against Joseph Bates, on a note for $4375; that the defendant in the…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
It is argued by the plaintiffs, that the agreement to stay proceedings on their judgment against Joseph Bates, for six months from the fourth of September, 1838, was made without consideration, and is, consequently, void. We understand it to be conceded, that the payment of two thousand dollars was not sufficient to sustain it; but it is insisted, that as the agreement was in writing, and the sheriff was directed to hold up the execution until the expiration of the time stipulated, and proceedings were accordingly suspended, no objection could be made to the insufficiency of the consideration.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cook v. BradleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
- M'Donald v. NeilsonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1823
- People v. ShallCourt Of Oyer And Terminer New York · 1829
- Tingley v. CutlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
- Bates v. StarrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barron v. VandvertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Sanford v. Ogden, Ferguson & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1859