Hall v. Hudson

20 Ala. 284
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1852·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

The legal issue upon the plea of nul tiel record was, in the opinion of the court, correctly determined. The Orphans’ Court was a court of record, and the entry of the judge, however full it might be, did not be[287] come tbe judgment of the court until entered of record. 3 Blackstone’s Com. 24. The statute (Clay’s Digest, 304, § 42) was not intended to alter this rule, but to authorize the issue of executions against an executor or administrator for the amount decreed, after it had become the judgment of the court, as in case of judgments at law.

•' We do not, by this decision, determine that a judgment of the Orphans’ Court can be revived by scire facias, understanding the counsel to waive all other points than the one determined.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Hall v. Hudson, 20 Ala. 284 (Ala. 1852).

20 Ala. 284 (Hall v. Hudson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitaker v. Kennamer
155 So. 855 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Lewis v. Martin
98 So. 635 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Zaner v. Thrower
84 So. 820 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Campbell v. Beyers
66 So. 651 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Perkins
44 So. 602 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Ward v. Urmson
59 N.W. 97 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Capell v. Landano
34 Ala. 135 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Stewart's Adm'r v. Stewart's Heirs
31 Ala. 207 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)