Legal Opinion

Casey v. Cooledge

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 14, 1937No. 6 Div. 72PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMAS, Justice,

The suit sought to revive a judgment at law.

The parties waived a trial by jury and the trial was had on plea of the general issue and special pleas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Demurrers to the pleas were overruled on the hearing of the cause and the motion to revive the case was denied, to which action of the court, the “movant accepts.”

Presupposing that a plaintiff in judgment has taken no action that would defeat his right or preclude his effort to revive a judgment rendered at his insistance, a scire facias to revive can be maintained in his name or by his personal representative,…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hodge v. JoySupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  2. Sparhawk v. YerkesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Georgia Cotton Co. v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Dushane v. BeallSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  5. Johnson v. CollierSupreme Court of the United States · 1912

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Van Antwerp v. Van AntwerpSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  2. Bonds v. BondsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  3. In Re PetersonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama · 2001
  4. Casey v. CooledgeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API