Casey v. Cleveland
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit eotrt of Talladega county. Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried before Judge Martin. Plaintiffs below declared in assumpsit on a promissory note, lo whffh defendant plead (in bar) that he was a “permanent Atinen and freeholder of Coosa county,” &c. Plaintiffs demurred to the plea, and the demurrer being sustained, judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs. The pica, it will he perceived, is contained at length in the opinion of the cxrrL
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
— To an action on the case on a promissory note, the plaintiff in this court, ÍUedm plea in the following words:
" Micajah B. Casey,
ads.
“Cleveland & Stub ble fold, use, efcc.
“Comes the defendant, Micajah hi Casey, in Ms proper person, and says that the .said Joseph. Cleveland and *446William Stubblefield, who sue to the use, &c. ought not to have and maintain their aforesaid action against him, in manner and form, Ac. For this, that lie says, at the time of the issuance of the said writ, he was, and ever since that time hath been, and yet is a permanent citizen and freeholder of Coosa county, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hart v. TurkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. MilbraSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Humphrey v. WhittenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Elmes v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843