Dumas v. Smith
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette. Tried before the Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite.' The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The Circuit judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the note, to which the defendant excepted and now assigns it as error.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Fayette. Tried before the Hon. Geo. Goldthwaite.' The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The Circuit judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the note, to which the defendant excepted and now assigns it as error. We contend in this case, that the two instruments introduced in evidence form but one contract, being made at the same time and in relation to the same subject matter, and are void for champerty. — See Hollaway v. Lowe, 7 Porter, 488, which is full to the point here presented. — Same case, 1 Ala. 246. cites the…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, J.
— William R. Smith, who was the plaintiff in the Circuit Court, introduced on trial a promissory note made by the defendant below, for the payment, one day after date thereof, of fifty dollars for the services of Mr. Smith in two cases *306in the Circuit Court of Fayette county, between Dumas and other persons, whose names are stated in the note. According to the note, the money was payable one day after the date of the note. He next introduced a writing signed by Dumas, whereby he agreed to give him one half of the damages which he, Dumas, might recover in the two cases which he had then pending…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. WebberSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Courtright v. BurnesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1881
- Scobey v. RossIndiana Supreme Court · 1854
- Jenkins v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877