Deming's Adm'r v. Hamil

38 Ala. 686
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1863
StatusPublished

This text of 38 Ala. 686 (Deming's Adm'r v. Hamil) 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
Deming's Adm'r v. Hamil, 38 Ala. 686 (Ala. 1863).

Opinion

STONE, J. —

It is not necessary for us to decide in this case, whether or not the plaintiff below was competent to prove his demand of twenty-five dollars, against the estate of the defendant’s intestate. He did not testify to a demand exceeding twenty dollars; and hence, the decision made by the circuit court on this point, whether right or wrong, did not injure the appellant. — Code, § 2779; McLendon v. Hamblin, 34 Ala. 86.

[2.] The only remaining exception is, that the circuit court allowed the plaintiff to remit all of his demand over $19 50, and then become a general witness in the cause. That practice has too long prevailed in this State, and received the sanction of this court, to be now open to controversy. — King v. Dougherty, 2 Stew. 487; Bentley v. Wright, 3 Ala. 607 ; Henderson v. Plumb, 18 Ala. 74 ; Crabtree v. Cliatt, 22 Ala. 181.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Bentley v. Wright
3 Ala. 607 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1842)
Henderson v. Plumb
18 Ala. 74 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)
Crabtree v. Cliatt
22 Ala. 181 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1853)
McLendon & Robinson v. Hamblin
34 Ala. 86 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
King v. Dougherty
2 Stew. 487 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 Ala. 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demings-admr-v-hamil-ala-1863.