Gordon v. Hood
Supreme Court of Alabama
IN the- Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Samuel G. Gordon declared against John Hood, “ for this, that whereas “ ^ sa^ defendant on the-day, &c. at, &c. with “ force and arms, one road waggon, &c. forcibly took out of « the possession of said plaintiff, &c. And also for that the smct defendant with iorceand arms, on the same day and « year aforesaid, at-, &c. carried away a certain road “ waggon, &c. the property of said Samuel,” &c.
Read the full summary
IN the- Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Samuel G. Gordon declared against John Hood, “ for this, that whereas “ ^ sa^ defendant on the-day, &c. at, &c. with “ force and arms, one road waggon, &c. forcibly took out of « the possession of said plaintiff, &c. And also for that the smct defendant with iorceand arms, on the same day and « year aforesaid, at-, &c. carried away a certain road “ waggon, &c. the property of said Samuel,” &c. The defendant plead not guilty, and a special plea of justification. Verdict for the plaintiff; and on motion of defendant, the Circuit Court arrested the…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Crenshaw
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The declaration contains two counts. The first commences that the plaintiff complains, “ for this, that whereas,” &c. The second, “ and also for that,” stating the charge without a whereas. The authorities seem to support the doctrine that in actions of trespass a statement of the injury under a Quid cum is not a sufficiently positive averment; but I am clearly of opinion that the defect is aided by our Statute of amendments, especially after verdict. Even in England, according to the more modern decisions, such a defect could be noticed by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coffin v. CoffinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807