Garrett & Bibb v. Terry

33 Ala. 514
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1859·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

STONE, J.—

If this proceeding be an action, within the meaning of section 2896 of the Code, our previous decisions require us to hold, that the bond given on suing out the supersedeas is not a security for the costs.—Ex parte Robbins, 29 Ala. 71; Shepherd v. Spriggs, 29 Ala. 673.

[515] In Pratt & McKenzie v. Keils & Sylvester, 28 Ala. 390-97, we held, that the petition, in cases like the present, must be regarded as a new action. The “ filing of the petition ” was the commencement of the action; and the failure of the petitioners to give security for the costs, justified the court in dismissing the suit.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed.

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

Garrett & Bibb v. Terry, 33 Ala. 514 (Ala. 1859).

33 Ala. 514 (Garrett & Bibb v. Terry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bealmear v. Beeson
263 S.W.2d 472 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1953)
Ex Parte Blackburn
85 So. 495 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Tanner v. Bryant
77 So. 431 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)
Carroll v. Vaughan
48 Ala. 352 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1872)
Ketchum v. Dennis
41 Ala. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1867)
Tuskaloosa Wharf Co. v. Mayor of Tuskaloosa
38 Ala. 514 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1863)