Jordan v. Bell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County court of Mobile. This was an action of assumpsit, on an inland bill of exchange. The judgment was taken by default; and the errors in the judgment, here insisted on, among, others not considered by the court, were— 1. That judgment was taken by default for principal, interest and damages, when it was not shewn by averment in the declaration, that the bill had been protested. -2. That the judgment was taken by default for a sum in damages, in gross,…
Read the full summary
Error to the County court of Mobile. This was an action of assumpsit, on an inland bill of exchange. The judgment was taken by default; and the errors in the judgment, here insisted on, among, others not considered by the court, were— 1. That judgment was taken by default for principal, interest and damages, when it was not shewn by averment in the declaration, that the bill had been protested. -2. That the judgment was taken by default for a sum in damages, in gross, without the intervention of a jury, including damages, interest, and cost of protest. 3. That the writ was issued and tested…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The only assignments to which our attention has been called, arc those which point out the supposed error in the return day of the writ, and the error in the amount of the judgment.
It may he questioned if the day is not well enough stated in the writ, as it is somewhat a forced presumption to conclude tire relative next docs not refer to the “ second Monday,” as well as to “June;” hut, if this is ad-*55xnitted to be an error, in cornos within the decision made in Nabors vs. Nabors, (2 Porters R. 162.) There the writ was made returnable in Marc:', when it should have been in April; and the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Flowers v. BittingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1871
- Knott v. VenableSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Nabors v. ThomasonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840