Wheelock v. Fitch
Supreme Court of Alabama
QUESTION IN THIS CASE. As to the want of replication to a defendants picas. This action was debt, in Tuskaloosa County Court, •on a sealed note executed by the plaintiff in error. There were several pleas tendered by the defendant in the action, to none of which, however, was there ,a replication by the plain 1 iff.
Read the full summary
QUESTION IN THIS CASE. As to the want of replication to a defendants picas. This action was debt, in Tuskaloosa County Court, •on a sealed note executed by the plaintiff in error. There were several pleas tendered by the defendant in the action, to none of which, however, was there ,a replication by the plain 1 iff. A judgment was rendered upon the verdict of a jury, in favor of the plaintiff, Filch, upon this state of the pleadings; and Wheelock prosecuted las writ of error to this Court.
1Per curiam
The plaintiff, (who was defendant below,) pleaded several pleas, in short, as it is slated by consent, and one special plea at length, concluding with a verification — all of winch are signed by his counsel only. At the foot of the pleas we find an entry in these words: “Demurrer in short, by consent, to all the pleas of the defendant.” (Signed,) “ Smith.” The demurrer does not seem to have- been noticed; nor was thereany replication or issue to any oí the pleas. It no where appears by the record, *388that “ Smith” was the plaintiff’s attorney. The declaration is signed “ Shortridge, P. Q.”
Without…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Abercrombie v. MoselySupreme Court of Alabama · 1839