Beard v. Branch Bank at Mobile
This text of 8 Ala. 344 (Beard v. Branch Bank at Mobile) 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.
Opinion
It has been repeatedly held, that in these summary proceedings, the notice has not the effect of process, nor is a suit pending, until a motion for judgment is submitted to the Court upon it. [See Lyon v. The State Bank, 1 Stew. 442; Bondurant v. Woods & Abbott, 1 Ala. Rep. 543; Griffin v. State Bank, 6 ib. 911.] It follows, that the omission to proceed against one of the defendants, cannot work a discontinuance of the mo[345]*345tion. The dismissal as to Godbold, was unnecessary, but cannot prejudice. It amounts merely to a declaration, that the Bank did not desire to proceed against that person.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Ala. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-branch-bank-at-mobile-ala-1845.