Drinkard v. Premier Refining Co.
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from Morgan County Court; W. T. Lowe, Judge. Assumpsit by the Premier Refining Company against T. E. Drinkard. There was judgment by default, and defendant appeals. The court erred in rendering judgment with proof of the debt. 25 Ala. 451; 128 Ala. 332, 29 South. 10; 38 Ala. 344; 67 Ala. 252; 76 Ala. 373; 163 Ala. 594, 50 South. 1034; 156 Ala. 573, 47 South. 307. .Brief of counsel did not' reach the Reporter.
1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.
The complaint-was in two counts, claiming for goods sold and delivered and on open count. Neither count was an instrument in writing or verified • account ascertaining the plaintiff’s demands. Code 3970 and 3971, §§ 5356, 5325. And the judgment being by default, without the intervention of a jury, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Rhea v. Holston Salt & P. Co., 59 Ala. 182; Parsons Lbr. Co. v. West Co. et al., 163 Ala. 594, 50 South. 1034.
There are other questions in the record, but we think a decision of them is unnecessary.
Reversed and remanded.
—-T?nr other cases see same…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Parsons Lumber Co. v. West-Steagall G. & M. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Rhea v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Garnett v. ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Frazier v. DismukeAlabama Court of Appeals · 1928