Bernard v. Fleming

Supreme Court of Alabama

Bernard v. Fleming

54 So. 515, 170 Ala. 163, 1911 Ala. LEXIS 45

DecidedJanuary 11, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 54 So. 515 (Bernard v. Fleming) 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

Bernard v. Fleming, 54 So. 515, 170 Ala. 163, 1911 Ala. LEXIS 45 (Ala. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

A judgment in detinue, if irregular in failing to ascertain and fix tbe alternate value of each article sued for, as required by law, is not so in such sense as to compel tbe judgment to be annulled or tbe proceedings to be quashed on bearing of common-law certiorari for such purpose, though tbe judgment might be reversed for that reason on appeal.

Tiie judgment in this cáse was for a “trank and its contents,” or its alternate value, fixed at $100. Tbe property was replevied by tbe defendant by tbe same description as that of tbe judgment. Tbe amended complaint more particularly described tbe articles contained in tbe trunk, and therefore the description in the judgment and the alternate value could have been more minute, yet the judgment was not absolutely void, and [165]*165the city court did not err in declining to quash the proceedings in the justice or inferior court on the hearing of the common-law certiorari.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and McClellan, JJ., concur.

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

MAYFIELD, J.

A judgment in detinue, if irregular in failing to ascertain and fix tbe alternate value of each article sued for, as required by law, is not so in such sense as to compel tbe judgment to be annulled or tbe proceedings to be quashed on bearing of common-law certiorari for such purpose, though tbe judgment might be reversed for that reason on appeal.

Tiie judgment in this cáse was for a “trank and its contents,” or its alternate value, fixed at $100. Tbe property was replevied by tbe defendant by tbe same description as that of tbe judgment. Tbe amended complaint more particularly described tbe articles contained in tbe trunk, and therefore the description in the judgment and the alternate value could have been more minute, yet the judgment was not absolutely void, and [165]*165the city court did not err in declining to quash the proceedings in the justice or inferior court on the hearing of the common-law certiorari.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Simpson and McClellan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 So. 515, 170 Ala. 163, 1911 Ala. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-v-fleming-ala-1911.