Blount v. McNeill

29 Ala. 473
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 15, 1856·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

WALKER, J.

The case of Randolph t. Cook & Ellis, 2 Porter, 286, is distinguishable from this. In that case, the entire cause of action was immature at the commencement of the suit. In this case, only one of the three notes sued on was not due when the suit was commenced, and there is no other objection to the declaration. It is unnecessary, therefore, in the decision of this case, either to maintain or to overrule that decision. The declaration here contains a good cause of action; and if the defendant had resisted the judgment of the court below, either by plea or demurrer,' the defense would have been partial, going only to a part of the matter embraced in the declaration. Such a defense is not available in this court, when no objection was in any way made in the court below. — Code, § 2405.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Blount v. McNeill, 29 Ala. 473 (Ala. 1856).

29 Ala. 473 (Blount v. McNeill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lord v. F. M. Dowling Co.
52 Fla. 313 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1906)
Relfe v. Valentine & Co.
45 Ala. 286 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)
Douglas v. Beasley
40 Ala. 142 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1866)
Mason v. Barnard
36 Mo. 384 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1865)
Foster v. State
39 Ala. 229 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1864)
Mahoney v. O'Leary
34 Ala. 97 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Childress v. Mann & Co.
33 Ala. 206 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Harris v. Plant & Co.
31 Ala. 639 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Walker v. Mobile Marine Dock & Mutual Insurance
31 Ala. 529 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
McElhaney v. Gilleland
30 Ala. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)