Boswell v. Slade

Supreme Court of Alabama

Boswell v. Slade

92 So. 607, 207 Ala. 340, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 90

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 20, 1922

Docket4 Div. 988.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 So. 607 (Boswell v. Slade) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 607, 207 Ala. 340, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boswell-v-slade-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack