North v. Eslava
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Mobile. This was a proceeding to recover rent, by the defendant in error, under a local statute, peculiar to the city of Mobile. The affidavit which is the foundation of the proceeding, was made by G. M. Mallet, setting forth, that the plaintiff in error was indebted to the defendant in error, in the sum of $163, for the rent of a tenement on Royal street, within the corporate limits of Mobile.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Mobile. This was a proceeding to recover rent, by the defendant in error, under a local statute, peculiar to the city of Mobile. The affidavit which is the foundation of the proceeding, was made by G. M. Mallet, setting forth, that the plaintiff in error was indebted to the defendant in error, in the sum of $163, for the rent of a tenement on Royal street, within the corporate limits of Mobile. A bond was executed by Eslava, payable to North, with surety, reciting that he had prayed for a warrant of distress, and with condition to pay all such costs and damages,…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
In Dumes v. McCloskey, 5 Ala. 239, we considered the effect of a statute precisely similar, in all respects to this, except that in the former act, passed in January, 1834, a levy was authorized to be made on any goods, found within the tenement, whilst in this, passed 30th January, 1840, the levy is confined to the goods of the defendant. Both these acts are local, applying only to the city of Mobile, and authorize an attachment to be levied on the goods of the tenant, found on the leased premises, for the payment of rent in arrear.
In the case previously referred to, we held that this was a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. PopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Dumes v. McLoskySupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
3Cited by3 opinions
- Taliaferro v. LaneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Maury v. UnruhSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Bailey v. LoebUnited States Circuit Court · 1875