Crawford v. Whittlesey

Supreme Court of Alabama

Crawford v. Whittlesey

8 Ala. 806

DecidedJune 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ala. 806 (Crawford v. Whittlesey) 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

Crawford v. Whittlesey, 8 Ala. 806 (Ala. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

COLLIER, C. J.

If the names of the parties had been omitted entirely on the margin of the entry, it would perhaps have been competent to refer to the writ and declaration to sustain it. •But be this as it may, it is perfectly clear that the designation of the parties is a mere clerical mistake, in writing the plaintiff’s name “ Jacob A. Whittlesey,” instead of “ JacobA. Robertson.”

None of our previous decisions ¿ire precisely analagous to this ; but it seems to us that it is just such a case as is contemplated by the fourth section of the act of 1824, “ to regulate pleadings at common law.” [Clay’s Dig. 322, § 54.] That section is in these words: “ No cause shall be reversed by the Supreme Court, or any Circuit Court, for any miscalculation of interest, or other clerical misprision in entering judgment, so as to give costs to the plaintiff in error ; but in all such cases, the Supreme Court may order the judgment to be amended at the costs of the plaintiff in error.”

We feel constrained thus to order the judgment to be amended, by substituting upon the margin the name of the plaintiff in the declaration, instead of Whittlesey.

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

COLLIER, C. J.

If the names of the parties had been omitted entirely on the margin of the entry, it would perhaps have been competent to refer to the writ and declaration to sustain it. •But be this as it may, it is perfectly clear that the designation of the parties is a mere clerical mistake, in writing the plaintiff’s name “ Jacob A. Whittlesey,” instead of “ JacobA. Robertson.”

None of our previous decisions ¿ire precisely analagous to this ; but it seems to us that it is just such a case as is contemplated by the fourth section of the act of 1824, “ to regulate pleadings at common law.” [Clay’s Dig. 322, § 54.] That section is in these words: “ No cause shall be reversed by the Supreme Court, or any Circuit Court, for any miscalculation of interest, or other clerical misprision in entering judgment, so as to give costs to the plaintiff in error ; but in all such cases, the Supreme Court may order the judgment to be amended at the costs of the plaintiff in error.”

We feel constrained thus to order the judgment to be amended, by substituting upon the margin the name of the plaintiff in the declaration, instead of Whittlesey.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ala. 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-whittlesey-ala-1845.