Garner v. Clay

Supreme Court of Alabama

Garner v. Clay

1 Stew. 182

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1827

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 Stew. 182 (Garner v. Clay) 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

Garner v. Clay, 1 Stew. 182 (Ala. 1827).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGE CRENSHAW.

Theee can be no doubt but it is the election which gives title to the office, and from that period the term of office commences, although the sheriff elect cannot act until he has given bond and qualified according to law. But as between the parties to the suit, (in order that there may not be a chasm in the administration of justice,) we are inclined to recognize the principle that the acts of a sheriff de facto are valid. When the writ was executed, Coleman, by virtue of his election, was entitled to the office, yet Slaughter originally came into the office by a lawful title, and continued to perform its duties, and Coleman, the person most interested in complaining, acted as his deputy. As to the public, and between the parties to the suit, we must say, that under these circumstances, the service of the writ was not void, and are unanimous in affirming the judgement.

Judge Gayle not sitting.

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

JUDGE CRENSHAW.

Theee can be no doubt but it is the election which gives title to the office, and from that period the term of office commences, although the sheriff elect cannot act until he has given bond and qualified according to law. But as between the parties to the suit, (in order that there may not be a chasm in the administration of justice,) we are inclined to recognize the principle that the acts of a sheriff de facto are valid. When the writ was executed, Coleman, by virtue of his election, was entitled to the office, yet Slaughter originally came into the office by a lawful title, and continued to perform its duties, and Coleman, the person most interested in complaining, acted as his deputy. As to the public, and between the parties to the suit, we must say, that under these circumstances, the service of the writ was not void, and are unanimous in affirming the judgement.

Judge Gayle not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Stew. 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-clay-ala-1827.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack