Clark's adm'rs v. Stoddard, Miller & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. THIS action was assumpsit in the Court below, brought by the defendants in error against Thomas S. Clark and Augustus Law, partners, under the style of Clark & Law. The writ was acknowledged by Clark, thus: “ I hereby acknowledge legal service of the within original writ, waiving copy writ.” Signed,. “ Thomas S. Clark, one of the firm of Clark & Law.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. THIS action was assumpsit in the Court below, brought by the defendants in error against Thomas S. Clark and Augustus Law, partners, under the style of Clark & Law. The writ was acknowledged by Clark, thus: “ I hereby acknowledge legal service of the within original writ, waiving copy writ.” Signed,. “ Thomas S. Clark, one of the firm of Clark & Law.” At a succeeding term of the Court, the suit was dismissed as to Law, and the death of Clark suggested, upon which the Court made an order, that a scire facias issue to the plaintiffs in error, adm’rs of…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
An acknowledgment of the service of process, is sufficient, if shown, to have been made by the party.— The recital in the judgment, that Clark was. served with process, would perhaps be sufficient to show that such proof was made, as the Court could not be certified of the fact, in any other mode. But in addition to this, we find that the adm’rs ■of Clark, came in and consented to become parties to the suit. This is an admission of i-ecord, that the process was served on their intestate, and disposes of the two first assignments of ■error.
By virtue of a .statute of this State, when a writ…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bancroft v. StantonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Hopkins v. CothranSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Hubbert v. CollierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844