Baker v. McKenzie

Alabama Court of Appeals

Baker v. McKenzie

105 So. 396, 21 Ala. App. 71, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 224

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 1925

Docket5 Div. 581.

StatusPublished

This text of 105 So. 396 (Baker v. McKenzie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. McKenzie, 105 So. 396, 21 Ala. App. 71, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 224 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

This appeal is on the record, without bill of exceptions, and hence, if the ruling's of the court on motions and pleadings are.free from error, it must follow that assignments of error 7 and 8 are without merit.

Under section 8806 of the Code of 1923 attachment suits to enforce ' liens for rent as between landlord and tenant must be tried in the same manner and upon the same notices as other attachment cases are tried. The suit in this case was begun by an insufficient bond and affidavit, but the plaintiff, under section 6213 of the Code of 1923, was properly permitted by the court to amend the original affidavit and to file a new bond to conform to the amended claim. This disposes of assignments 1 and 2. With the amendments to the affidavit and bond, pleas A, B, and D were without merit, and were properly stricken on motion.

It is next insisted that the substituted or amended affidavit allowed by the court is fatally defective, but no citation of authority appears to support this contention. The affidavit is made by the plaintiff setting forth the amount for rent; that one of the causes for issuing the attachment prescribed in section 8804 of the Code of 1923 exists; and that the attachment was not sued out ’for the purpose of vexing or harassing the defendant. A bond as required by lawi was executed and approved. All this was done in conformity to section 8805 of the Code, and was sufficient. The rulings of the court on this affidavit and bond were without error.

The other assignments of error are not insisted on in brief, and are therefore waived-

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

This appeal is on the record, without bill of exceptions, and hence, if the ruling's of the court on motions and pleadings are.free from error, it must follow that assignments of error 7 and 8 are without merit.

Under section 8806 of the Code of 1923 attachment suits to enforce ' liens for rent as between landlord and tenant must be tried in the same manner and upon the same notices as other attachment cases are tried. The suit in this case was begun by an insufficient bond and affidavit, but the plaintiff, under section 6213 of the Code of 1923, was properly permitted by the court to amend the original affidavit and to file a new bond to conform to the amended claim. This disposes of assignments 1 and 2. With the amendments to the affidavit and bond, pleas A, B, and D were without merit, and were properly stricken on motion.

It is next insisted that the substituted or amended affidavit allowed by the court is fatally defective, but no citation of authority appears to support this contention. The affidavit is made by the plaintiff setting forth the amount for rent; that one of the causes for issuing the attachment prescribed in section 8804 of the Code of 1923 exists; and that the attachment was not sued out ’for the purpose of vexing or harassing the defendant. A bond as required by lawi was executed and approved. All this was done in conformity to section 8805 of the Code, and was sufficient. The rulings of the court on this affidavit and bond were without error.

The other assignments of error are not insisted on in brief, and are therefore waived-

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 396, 21 Ala. App. 71, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-mckenzie-alactapp-1925.