Bradford v. Bush

10 Ala. 274
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1846
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 10 Ala. 274 (Bradford v. Bush) 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
Bradford v. Bush, 10 Ala. 274 (Ala. 1846).

Opinion

ORMOND, J.

There is no difference in principle, between the facts on which this application is based, and those of Hall y. Hrabrowski, 9 Ala. 278. The petition sets forth, that the plaintiff in error having obtained judgment below, collected the amount thereof by execution, and afterwards prosecuted a writ of error to this court, and at this term of the court has procured a reversal of the judgment. In the case cited, the money was enforced by execution, after the writ of error was sued out, but before the commencement of the term of this court, at which the judgment was reversed ; the application in that case, as in this, being after the reversal of the judgment. If the application had been made before the hearing of the cause, we would have directed the dismissal of the writ of error, unless the plaintiff refunded the money coerced by the execution. As the motion has not been made until the judgment was reversed, the defendant must pay the costs of this court; but If the facts set forth in the motion are not denied by the plaintiff on oath, a stay of the certificate will be directed, until the money collected by the execution is refunded to the defendant.

The argument of the plainttff’s counsel, that this court cannot take original jurisdiction, and try the fact of payment if that is disputed, is premature. It will be time enough to consider that question, when the facts set forth in the affidavit of the defendant, are denied in the same manner by the plaintiff.

The motion is allowed, and a rule upon the plaintiff granted, to show cause at the next term of this court, why the certificate of this court, of the reversal of this cause, should not be stayed, until the money coerced by the plaintiff under execution in this cause is refunded to the defendant.

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

Related

Osborn v. Empire Life Ins. Co. of America
342 So. 2d 763 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1977)
ALCO LAND AND TIMBER COMPANY, INC. v. Baer
269 So. 2d 99 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Williams v. Jefferson County
72 So. 2d 920 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Grief Bros. Cooperage Corp. v. Stacey
58 So. 2d 122 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
Shannon v. Mower
65 So. 338 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Ex parte Wellden
42 So. 632 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Whetstone v. McQueen
137 Ala. 301 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Smith v. Patton
128 Ala. 611 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1900)
Ex parte Walter Bros.
89 Ala. 237 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1889)
Phillips v. Towles
73 Ala. 406 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Paine v. Woolley
80 Ky. 568 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1882)
Shingler v. Martin
54 Ala. 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Morton's Administrators v. Underwood
49 Ala. 419 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1873)
May v. Sharp
49 Ala. 140 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1873)
Hoard v. Hoard's Adm'r
41 Ala. 590 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1868)
Garner v. Prewitt
32 Ala. 13 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Traun v. Keiffer
31 Ala. 136 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)
Tarleton v. Goldthwaite's Heirs
23 Ala. 346 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1853)
Knox's Distributees v. Steele
18 Ala. 815 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1851)
McCreeliss's Distributees v. Hinkle
17 Ala. 459 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Ala. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-bush-ala-1846.