Jean v. Sandiford

39 Ala. 317
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 39 Ala. 317 (Jean v. Sandiford) 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
Jean v. Sandiford, 39 Ala. 317 (Ala. 1864).

Opinion

STONE, J.

The complaint in this case, after it was amended, was sufficient. It describes the land as situated in Mobile county, and we tbink this made it good. — See Code, §§ 1099 et seq.

[2.] We do not tbink interest should bave been allowed on the damages assessed by the jury. These damages are in the nature of a penalty fixed by statute, without any reference to fault or neglect on the part of the owner of the cattle committing the trespass. The penalty for the second, or any subsequent trespass, is double damages. If we allow interest on the first recovery, by the same rule we must allow it on each subsequent recovery. This would be an enlargement of the terms of the statute, which we feel unwilling to make. — See Code, § 1192. The cases in which we have heretofore held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest, are unlike this in principle.—See Stoudenmire v. Williamson, 29 Ala. 558-569; Caldwell v. Sawyer, 30 Ala. 283; Rowland, v. Shelton, 25 Ala. 217, and authorities cited in each case. The verdict in this case ascertains the amount of the plaintiff’s damages. What it affirms in regard to interest, should have been regarded as surplusage by the city court.

13.J The error of the court below consists in awarding judgment for interest, when none was due. Such errors are in their nature clerical, and do not furnish ground for the ordinary judgment of reversal in this court, unless the primary court, on having its attention directed to it, refuse to make the correction.—See Code, §§ 3034, 3037; Boyd v. Gilchrist, 15 Ala. 849-856; Gould v. Meyer, 36 Ala. 571; McLeod v. The State, 35 Ala. 398; Jackson v. Shipman, 28 Ala. 493; Warfield v. State, 34 Ala. 261; Rambo v. Wyatt, 32 Ala. 368; Campbell v. May, 31 Ala. 570; Jones v. Brooks, 30 Ala. 590; Savage v. Walshe, 26 Ala. 633; Drane v. King, 21 Ala. 558; Witherington v. Brantley, 18 Ala. 200; Ivey v. McQueen, 17 Ala. 411; Crawford [320]*320v. Whittlesey, 8 Ala. 807; McBarnett v. Breed, 6 Ala. 476; Oliver v. Hearne, 4 Ala. 271; Weatherford v. Weatherford, 8 Por. 171.

Having before us tbe data upon wbicb to make tbe proper correction, we will do so. Let tbe appellant pay tbe costs of tbe appeal.

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

Related

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hannon
22 So. 2d 603 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1945)
Murphy v. Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile
200 So. 894 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Jefferson County v. City of Birmingham
178 So. 226 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Alverson v. Floyd
121 So. 55 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Mobile O. R. Co. v. Williams
121 So. 722 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Alabama Power Co. v. Allen
118 So. 662 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Grand Bay Land Co. v. Simpson
92 So. 789 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Southern Steam Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Goldman
84 So. 478 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
Deas v. Garrett & Mason
80 So. 146 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Howton v. Mathias
73 So. 92 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Atlanta & Birmingham A. L. Ry. v. Brown
47 So. 73 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Birmingham Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Moore
42 So. 1024 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dickens
41 So. 469 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
McKenzie v. Gibson
73 Ala. 204 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1882)
Glidden v. Street
68 Ala. 600 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Bishop v. Lalouette's Heirs
67 Ala. 197 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Ala. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jean-v-sandiford-ala-1864.