Gill v. Downs
26 Ala. 670
Opinion
—The only error assigned is, that the court refused the motion to quash the attachment. Such refusal cannot be questioned on error : neither is a motion to quash the remedy in such cases.—Jordan v. Hazard, 10 Ala. 221-6. But, if it were, the defendant waived it, by failing to make it at the first term of the court, and. by afterwards appearing and pleading to the merits.—Burroughs v. Wright, 3 Ala. 43.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gill v. Downs, 26 Ala. 670 (Ala. 1855).
26 Ala. 670 (Gill v. Downs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Strickland
148 So. 799 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Bates v. Bank of Moulton
148 So. 150 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Melvin v. Scowley
104 So. 817 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Beckert v. Whitlock
83 Ala. 123 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Brown v. Coats
56 Ala. 439 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Nelson v. Webb
54 Ala. 436 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Bishop Bros. v. Fennerty
46 Miss. 570 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1872)
First National Bank of Selma v. Colby
46 Ala. 435 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)
State v. Gardner
45 Ala. 46 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)