White v. Nance
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. Nathan Cook. 1. Independent of the facts stated to the court by plaintiff’s counsel, the proof abundantly shows that Thomas White, the patentee, was a mere nominal plaintiff. It is not necessary that the record should disclose the party in interest, unless called to indemnify the nominal plaintiff for costs.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. Nathan Cook. 1. Independent of the facts stated to the court by plaintiff’s counsel, the proof abundantly shows that Thomas White, the patentee, was a mere nominal plaintiff. It is not necessary that the record should disclose the party in interest, unless called to indemnify the nominal plaintiff for costs. Brazier v, Tarver, 4 Ala. 569. 2. The nominal plaintiff, White, could not dismiss the suit, because he had given no nolice to indemnify against the costs. Brazier v. Tarver, 4 Ala. 569. 3. While being the nominal plaintiff, his…
1Opinion of the Court
DARGAN, J.,
This is an action of trespass to try titles, :and recover possession of a tract of land, brought in the name ■of the plaintiff against the defendant. As evidence of title, a ^patent was introduced, from which it appears that the land in -controversy, was granted by the government to the plaintiff. 'The defendant then offered in evidence, an instrument in writing,.signed by the plaintiff, in which he acknowledged that he had as» title to the land, as he had conveyed it before the suit *347was brought, and in which he agreed that the suit should be dismissed. The counsel for the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brazier v. TarverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ex Parte HartwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Harris v. Town of East BrewtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Ex parte RandallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Jennings v. PearceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892