Grund v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court' of Marengo. Tried before the Hon. James Cobbs. The judgment nisi, the scirefacias, and the judgment final, as set out in the record in this case, are in the following words: “ The State of Alabama y vs. >• James Stephens, and John Grand.) It appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that James Stephens and John Grand agreed to pay the State of Alabama the sum of two hundred dollars, unless the said James Stephens appeared here at this term of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court' of Marengo. Tried before the Hon. James Cobbs. The judgment nisi, the scirefacias, and the judgment final, as set out in the record in this case, are in the following words: “ The State of Alabama y vs. >• James Stephens, and John Grand.) It appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that James Stephens and John Grand agreed to pay the State of Alabama the sum of two hundred dollars, unless the said James Stephens appeared here at this term of the court, to answer to the State of Alabama the offense of assault and battery, whereof he stands indicted in said…
1Opinion of the CourtByrd, J.
Grundhas alone assigned errors, and we will confine our investigation to the assignments made and argued by counsel. The judgments nisi aind final, and the notice served upon appellant, are in substantial conformity to sections 703, 704, and 707 of the Code; and a substantial conformity thereto is all that is required by the Code. The counsel for appellant insist, that the word “may”, in sections 703 and 704, must be construed as imperative. If so, still those sections are not to be construed as requiring an exact or literal conformity to the forms therein set forth. The mere address of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Emanuel v. KetchumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Cantaline v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Richardson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858