Ex parte Pollard
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appxícations for the writ of mandamus to the City Court of Montgomery, Hon. B. S. Bibb presiding. The two cases were argued and submitted at the last term of the court, and were held under advisement until the present term. In Ex parte Pollard, the petitioner, as surviving partner of the late firm of Thiess & Pollard, instituted an action in said city court, on the 9th January, 1866, against ’Willliam Falconer; and the summons was duly executed on the 10th January.
Read the full summary
Appxícations for the writ of mandamus to the City Court of Montgomery, Hon. B. S. Bibb presiding. The two cases were argued and submitted at the last term of the court, and were held under advisement until the present term. In Ex parte Pollard, the petitioner, as surviving partner of the late firm of Thiess & Pollard, instituted an action in said city court, on the 9th January, 1866, against ’Willliam Falconer; and the summons was duly executed on the 10th January. On the 26th February, 1866,- a day of the regular February term of said court, when the cause was reached in its order on the…
1Opinion of the CourtJudge, J.
These cases relate to different sections of the act to regulate judicial proceedings, approved February 2Cth, 1866. Ex parte Pollard relates to the first and eighth sections of the act, and Ex parte Woods to the second, third and fourth sections. Both cases will be considered together.
Section 10 of article I of the constitution of the United *83States provides, that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. There is a distinction between the obligation of a contract, and the remedy given to enforce that obligation. The obligation is the law which binds the parties to…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Green v. BiddleSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- McCracken v. HaywardSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- McCulloch v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by139 opinions
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Lindsay v. United States Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Van Pelt v. HilliardSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
- Yelle v. BishopWashington Supreme Court · 1959
- Alabama State Bridge Corporation v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
134 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.