Adm'rs of Weatherford v. Weatherford
Supreme Court of Alabama
This was an action of assumpsit for money lent, laid out and expended, &c. to and for the use of the intestate of the plaintiffs in error. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant in error, on the plea of non-assump-sit.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for money lent, laid out and expended, &c. to and for the use of the intestate of the plaintiffs in error. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant in error, on the plea of non-assump-sit. The writ was dated twenty-ninth February, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, and the entry of judgment was— “At a Circuit court began and held for the county of Co-necuh, on the first Monday of March, A. D. 1836.”— It was here assigned in error — ■ 1. That the judgment was de bonis propriis; 2. That the court was held at a time not authorised by law.
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— Two points have been made by the plaintiffs in error.
1. The judgment is rendered de bonis propriis, when it should have been de bonis intestatis.
2. The judgment was rendered at a time when the law did not authorise the court to be holden.
First. — The cause of action, as shown by the declaration, being a liability incurred by the intestate of the plaintiffs, there can be no doubt, but the judgment should have been rendered de bonis intestatis. But as the judg* ment of the Circuit court would either be reversed and rendered, or corrected as for a clerical mistake under the statute, and the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Eliza v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- Branch Bank of Mobile v. MurphySupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- State Ex Rel. Jones v. StearnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Oliver v. HearneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Lane v. KolbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890