Copeland v. Flowers

Supreme Court of Alabama

Copeland v. Flowers

21 Ala. 472

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1852

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 Ala. 472 (Copeland v. Flowers) 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

Copeland v. Flowers, 21 Ala. 472 (Ala. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

LIGON, J.

— The statement filed in this case contains two counts. The first is indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor done; and the second appears to be a count in trover for the value of a wagon.

To this statement there was a general demurrer, Avhich was sustained by the court below. The practice of demurring to statements in cases of appeal from justices of the peace, in which the case is required by the statute to be tried de novo on its merits in the Appellate Court, on an issue made up under its direction, .'-as sanctioned by this court in the case of Williams v. Hinton, 1 A. R. 297, and has never been repudiated.

In the case under consideration, there is a clear misjoinder of causes of action; for it is too well settled to require a citation of authorities to prove it, that assumpsit and trover cannot be joined in the same declaration, and that such mis-joinder is bad on general demurrer.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.

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

LIGON, J.

— The statement filed in this case contains two counts. The first is indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor done; and the second appears to be a count in trover for the value of a wagon.

To this statement there was a general demurrer, Avhich was sustained by the court below. The practice of demurring to statements in cases of appeal from justices of the peace, in which the case is required by the statute to be tried de novo on its merits in the Appellate Court, on an issue made up under its direction, .'-as sanctioned by this court in the case of Williams v. Hinton, 1 A. R. 297, and has never been repudiated.

In the case under consideration, there is a clear misjoinder of causes of action; for it is too well settled to require a citation of authorities to prove it, that assumpsit and trover cannot be joined in the same declaration, and that such mis-joinder is bad on general demurrer.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ala. 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-v-flowers-ala-1852.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack