Castles v. McMath
Supreme Court of Alabama
THE defendant in error brought an action of assumpsit, in-the County Court of Pickens, upon a bill of exchange, of the following- tenor, viz: “ Carrollton, Ala. March 15, 1838. ‘‘Exchange $1852 S0-100ths.
Read the full summary
THE defendant in error brought an action of assumpsit, in-the County Court of Pickens, upon a bill of exchange, of the following- tenor, viz: “ Carrollton, Ala. March 15, 1838. ‘‘Exchange $1852 S0-100ths. Eight months after date of this-my first of exchange, second of the same tenor and date unpaid,, pay to the order of George G. Child, the sum of eighteen huadred and fifty-two and eighty hundredths dollars, negotiable and payable at the Branch of the Bank of the State of Alabama at Mobile, for value received, and charge the same to account of Wm. Castles. To Messrs. Scott, Bush & Henley,…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— 1. The duplicity complained oí in the •declaration is, that after setting'forth, that the bill was protested for non-acceptance, it goes on to allege a protest for non-payment also. In Evans v. Watrous, (2 Porter’s Rep. 205:) it was determined “ that under our statute, which prohibits special demurrer, where there is a clear and substantial cause of action set forth in a declaration, though it may contain irrelevant or superfluous matter; or though it may contain duplicity, yet the defendant shall be held to answer it.” It is not pretended that the -declaration does not contain a good cause…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Donnell v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. AbernathySupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- McElhaney v. GillelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Mosely v. TuthillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1871
- Phillips v. PoindexterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.