Allman v. Ripley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Allman v. Ripley

39 Ala. 351

DecidedJanuary 15, 1864

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Ala. 351 (Allman v. Ripley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allman v. Ripley, 39 Ala. 351 (Ala. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It seems to us that ;tbe libel is fatally defective, in omitting to show that tbe bbebant rendered tbe services, for wbicb be sues, in some one of tbe capacities specified in tbe latter clause of section 2692 of tbe Code, or that tbe services were rendered for one of tbe objects specified in tbe former clause. "We therefore tbint that tbe court erred in not bolding tbe bbel insufficient, and in proceeding to render judgment upon it,

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

It seems to us that ;tbe libel is fatally defective, in omitting to show that tbe bbebant rendered tbe services, for wbicb be sues, in some one of tbe capacities specified in tbe latter clause of section 2692 of tbe Code, or that tbe services were rendered for one of tbe objects specified in tbe former clause. "We therefore tbint that tbe court erred in not bolding tbe bbel insufficient, and in proceeding to render judgment upon it,

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Ala. 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allman-v-ripley-ala-1864.