De Graffenreid v. Pearsall

Supreme Court of Alabama

De Graffenreid v. Pearsall

1 Ala. 526

DecidedJune 15, 1840

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ala. 526 (De Graffenreid v. Pearsall) 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

De Graffenreid v. Pearsall, 1 Ala. 526 (Ala. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

COLLIER, C. J.

— It is insisted for the.plaintiffs in error, that the judgment of the circuit court cannot be sustained, because it does not appear that the defendant was a party to the judgment of the county court. The objection is not well well taken. The entry in the circuit court begins as follows: [527]*527“Came James M. Pearsall, defendant in error, and here produces to the court, the certificate,” &e. Now, the designation of Pearsall, as the “ defendant in error,” is clearly sufficient to show that he was the successful party in the county court; otherwise, he could not have been a defendant in the circuit court. True, the judgment would have been more formal, if it had said directly lhat the judgment of the county court had been recovered by Pearsall; but the omission in the present case, cannot be regarded as important.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

COLLIER, C. J.

— It is insisted for the.plaintiffs in error, that the judgment of the circuit court cannot be sustained, because it does not appear that the defendant was a party to the judgment of the county court. The objection is not well well taken. The entry in the circuit court begins as follows: [527]*527“Came James M. Pearsall, defendant in error, and here produces to the court, the certificate,” &e. Now, the designation of Pearsall, as the “ defendant in error,” is clearly sufficient to show that he was the successful party in the county court; otherwise, he could not have been a defendant in the circuit court. True, the judgment would have been more formal, if it had said directly lhat the judgment of the county court had been recovered by Pearsall; but the omission in the present case, cannot be regarded as important.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ala. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-graffenreid-v-pearsall-ala-1840.