Randolph v. Cook
Supreme Court of Alabama
Assumpsit on a promissoiy note. The defendants in error sued out a capias ad respondendum, from the County Court of Tuskaloosa, against Randolph, on the day the note became due. At the appearance term, the plaintiff in error entered a formal appearance by attorney, and at the succeeding term, judgment by default, for want of a plea, was rendered against him.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissoiy note. The defendants in error sued out a capias ad respondendum, from the County Court of Tuskaloosa, against Randolph, on the day the note became due. At the appearance term, the plaintiff in error entered a formal appearance by attorney, and at the succeeding term, judgment by default, for want of a plea, was rendered against him. The plaintiff prosecuted his writ of error to this Court, and the question raised, was, whether the objection was available in error, after appearance and plea. said, that in this case suit was brought on the note before it was due. It…
1Opinion of the Court
By Mr. Chief justice Sappold:
The action was assumpsit, ’brought by the defendants in error, on á promissory note drawn in their fa-' vor by Randolph. The note bears date on the 5th June. 1832; is payable one day after date, and the writ was issued and served on the 6th of the same month. The' declaration contains one count only, which is on the note in the usual form, and is captioned as of June Term of the County Court, 1832, this being the return term.- At the same term, T.' j. Abbott, Esq. an attorney of this Court, entered a formal appearance for the defendant, on the Appearance book, in…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Mahoney v. O'LearySupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Douglas v. BeasleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1866
- Blount v. McNeillSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Sandford v. DillawayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Ritter v. HoyAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.