Snedicor v. Leachman
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Greene. Assumpsit by the defendant’s intestate, against the plaintiff’s intestate. The declaration contains only the general indebitatus count, for work and labor, during the year 1840, as an overseer.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Greene. Assumpsit by the defendant’s intestate, against the plaintiff’s intestate. The declaration contains only the general indebitatus count, for work and labor, during the year 1840, as an overseer. Upon the trial, under the general issue, the plaintiff proved that his intestate was the overseer of the defendant’s intestate during the year 1840 — and the defendant then proved an admission by the plaintiff’s intestate, in his lifetime, that he was to receive a part of the crop raised on the plantation, for his services, and by a witness that in the fall of…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The right to resort to the general counts, where there has been a special agreement, is thus stated by an eminent judge: “ Where a party declares on a special coil" tract, seeking to recover thereon, but fails altogether in his right so to do, he may recover on a general count, if the case be such, that supposing there had been no special contract, he might still have recovered for money paid, or for work find labor done.” Cook v. Munstone, 1 N. R. 355, (3 B & P.) So it has been held by this court, that the party may recover on the common counts, although there is a special contract, whenever…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sprague v. MorganSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
3Cited by14 opinions
- Holloway v. TalbotSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Meyers v. SchempIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Carbon Hill Coal Co. v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Ala. & Tenn. Rivers Railroad v. NaborsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Cleveland v. TowleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.