Crawford v. Slaton

133 Ala. 393
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1901·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

MoOLELLAN, C. J.

An action for penalties prescribed for a wrongful act or omission, though technically an action of debt, is not an action for the recovery of a debt contracted, but an action ew delicto for a tort. — Williams v. Bowden, 69 Ala. 433. The action brought by Slaton against Crawford for the penalties prescribed by section 4137 of the Code was of this sort. And against the judgment in such action whether for costs and damages for the plaintiff or for costs in favor of the defendant there is no exemption from levy and sale. — Northern v. Hanners, 121 Ala. 587. The circuit court erred in its rulings to the contrary. Its judgment will be reversed and the cause will he remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Crawford v. Slaton, 133 Ala. 393 (Ala. 1901).

133 Ala. 393 (Crawford v. Slaton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Tarleton
75 So. 643 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)
L. & N. R. R. v. Perkins
56 So. 105 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)
Wright v. Sample
50 So. 268 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
Johnson v. Collier
49 So. 761 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)