Legal Opinion

Stewart v. Hood

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1846PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to the Circuit Court of Pickens. Assumpsit by Stewart and another, as administrators de bo* nis non of B. G. Sims, deceased, against Garnett and another, as the makers ofa note payable to one Gordon, administrator in chief of that estate. The defendants pleaded, 1. Non as-sumbsit. 2. Want of consideration. 3. Failure of consideration. 4. Fraud.

Read the full summary

Error to the Circuit Court of Pickens. Assumpsit by Stewart and another, as administrators de bo* nis non of B. G. Sims, deceased, against Garnett and another, as the makers ofa note payable to one Gordon, administrator in chief of that estate. The defendants pleaded, 1. Non as-sumbsit. 2. Want of consideration. 3. Failure of consideration. 4. Fraud. At the trial, the note was read to the jury, and appeared to be given on the 14th February, 1845, due on the 1st January thereafter. This was admitted by the parties to be assets of the estate, ,and to have been given to Gordon as administrator…

1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.

The question with respect to the form of the judgment for costs is not a material one, so far as the reversal of the judgment is connected with it, inasmuch *606as it would be considered amendable if incorrectly entered. But the point is one of considerable importance, and may as well be decided now as at another time. At common law, no costs were due, either to the plaintiff or defendant. [Tidd’s Prac. 945.] The English statute giving costs has never been construed to warrant them against administrators when they necessarily sue in their representative character, though it is said, if they sue…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rogers v. BarnettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1817

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Louisville N. R. Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Pettit's Adm'r v. Pettit's DistributeesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
  3. Ex parte CuddSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Morris v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
  5. Saltmarsh v. Bower & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1859

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API