Garlick v. Dunn
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bussell. Tried before tbe Hon. Bobert Dougherty. The appellee’s testator, one D. N. Gerald, instituted Ms suit against the appellant, and ¥m. K. Aldridge, on the 9th February, 1859, the cause of action being a promissory note. At the spring term, 1866, there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the suit having been duly revived in the name of the executor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bussell. Tried before tbe Hon. Bobert Dougherty. The appellee’s testator, one D. N. Gerald, instituted Ms suit against the appellant, and ¥m. K. Aldridge, on the 9th February, 1859, the cause of action being a promissory note. At the spring term, 1866, there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the suit having been duly revived in the name of the executor. The facts necessary to understand the questions of law decided in the case, will sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtJudge, J.
-We concede the correctness of the principle insisted upon by the appellant, that when a time is prescribed by law within which a court shall be held, it is essential to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court, that it act within the time prescribed, and that should it act at another and a different time, such acts are abso*405lutely void.— Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 446. But this principle has no application to the present case. We judicially know that Monday, the 14th of May, 1866, was the time appointed by law for the holding of the spring term of the circuit court for Russell county; and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wightman v. KarsnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
3Cited by25 opinions
- Smurr v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Ex parte Branch & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Hale v. KinnairdSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Whitlock v. WillardSupreme Court of Florida · 1881
- Earls v. EarlsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.