Boswell v. Slade

92 So. 607, 207 Ala. 340, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 90
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided April 20, 1922·No. 4 Div. 988.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

While section 2961 of the Code of 1907, among other things, provides that the plaintiff “must within the first three days of the return term of the attachment file his complaint,” it has been held by the previous decisions of this court that this provision is directory, and that the attach•ment should not be dismissed or dissolved if the complaint is filed at any time before judgment. Perkerson v. Snodgrass, 85 Ala. 137, 4 South. 752; Decatur & Nashville Co. v. Crass, 97 Ala. 524, 12 South. 41. This provision has been reproduced without material change in succeeding Codes, and we must assume that it was readopted as construed in the cases supra. I-Ienee the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss the attachment.

VIt is sufficient to say as to appellant’s assignment of error No. 2 that .there is nothing in the record to show that the motion to tax the plaintiff with the cost was brought to the attention of the trial court, or that a ruling was made upon same.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ„ concur.

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

Boswell v. Slade, 92 So. 607, 207 Ala. 340, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 90 (Ala. 1922).

92 So. 607 (Boswell v. Slade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Reid
88 So. 2d 857 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Cooper v. Owen
161 So. 98 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Alford v. Claborne
157 So. 226 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Ex Parte Morgan
102 So. 238 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)