Cloud v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Cloud v. Patterson

1 Stew. 394

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1828

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 Stew. 394 (Cloud v. Patterson) 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

Cloud v. Patterson, 1 Stew. 394 (Ala. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE WHITE.

The question is, whether the Court erred in the opinion given on the trial as stated ? We think not. There ivas written, and therefore, superior evidence of the contract of sale admitted to exist, than that offered by the defen[395]*395dant below. Hence it was right to exclude the latter, until the nonproduction of the former was accounted for in a way recognized by law. Let the judgement be affirmed. ■

Note. See Minor’s Ala. Rep. 410, 71, 257Í 270v Shortridge and Ellis, for the plaintiff. Parsons, for defendant. Judge Saeeold not sitting.

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

By JUDGE WHITE.

The question is, whether the Court erred in the opinion given on the trial as stated ? We think not. There ivas written, and therefore, superior evidence of the contract of sale admitted to exist, than that offered by the defen[395]*395dant below. Hence it was right to exclude the latter, until the nonproduction of the former was accounted for in a way recognized by law. Let the judgement be affirmed. ■

Note. See Minor’s Ala. Rep. 410, 71, 257Í 270v Shortridge and Ellis, for the plaintiff. Parsons, for defendant. Judge Saeeold not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Stew. 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cloud-v-patterson-ala-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack