Foote v. Lawrence
Supreme Court of Alabama
Laweence brought an action of covenant in the County Court of Limestone county against Foote; issue was joined on the plea of covenants performed, and at the January term, 1827, there was the following record of the trial: “came the parties by their attorneys, and thereupon also came a jury of good and lawful men to wit, (here follow the names of eleven persons only,) who being duly sworn to try Ihe issue joined, on their -oaths do say, “we the jury find said issue for the…
Read the full summary
Laweence brought an action of covenant in the County Court of Limestone county against Foote; issue was joined on the plea of covenants performed, and at the January term, 1827, there was the following record of the trial: “came the parties by their attorneys, and thereupon also came a jury of good and lawful men to wit, (here follow the names of eleven persons only,) who being duly sworn to try Ihe issue joined, on their -oaths do say, “we the jury find said issue for the plaintiff,&c. on which verdict judgement was rendered for the plaintiff. Foote in this Court assigns for error, that the…
1Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE
delivered the opinion of- the Court.
The only error relied on in this case is, that the record does not afford evidence that there were more than eleven jurors to try the issue joined between the parties.
There can be no question that every issue of fact must be tried by a jury of twelve men; it is not however necessary that their names should be recorded. The term jury is well understood to be twelve men ; and when the record shews that a jury of good and lawful men came to try the issue joined, we understand it as well as if it gave the names of the jurors; at least in civil…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cowles v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2024
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
- United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025