Ex parte Grantland

29 Ala. 69
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 Ala. 69 (Ex parte Grantland) 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
Ex parte Grantland, 29 Ala. 69 (Ala. 1856).

Opinion

STONE, J.

If the testimony sought to be elicited by the several interrogatories to which the demurrer was sustained, is not relevant to some one of the issues, the motion for mandamus must be overruled.

The action, in aid of which the interrogatories were filed, was brought by petitioner, as administrator of Walter Grant-land, against Nicholas Lewis. The complaint contained several counts; for’work and labor done, for negro hire, on an account stated, for money had and received, for money lent, and for money paid. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, set-off, and the statute of limitations of three and six years.

The interrogatory numbered 120 is the one which discloses the object in propounding the series from 119 to 127, inclusive. Its language is: “In someone or more of said wills, [71]*71did you insert a clause in favor of said Grantland, to the effect, that you gave him negroes and money, upon condition that he would set ftp no claim against your estate after your death?”

To test the pertinency of this question, let us suppose it to be answered affirmatively. Would the proof be relevant to any one of the issues ? We think not. It contained neither an admission, nor any circumstance tending to show an admission, of any indebtedness past or present. It furnished no fact from which an indebtedness could have been implied. It was, at most, an offer to purchase the peace, not of himself while living, but of his estate after his death. This was inadmissible against him as evidence. — See Cowen & Hill's Notes to Phil. Ev., part 1, page 218.

We need not, and do not, now decide that mandamus would lie for the object contemplated in this proceeding. We have seen that the circuit court, in sustaining the demurrer to the interrogatories, did not err; and the writ of mandamus is refused, with costs.

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

Related

Ex Parte Benson
10 So. 2d 482 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1942)
Tuck v. Carlisle
115 So. 155 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Ex Parte State
115 So. 155 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Russell v. Bush
71 So. 397 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Culver v. Alabama Midland Railway Co.
108 Ala. 330 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Martin v. State
62 Ala. 119 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Ala. 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-grantland-ala-1856.