Keep v. Kelly & Levin
This text of 29 Ala. 322 (Keep v. Kelly & Levin) 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.
Opinion
1. The sufficiency of the proof to sustain the plaintiff’s action in this case, is not presented in such form that we can consider it. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence ; and the rule in such case is, that we must presume the evidence, if set out, would sustain the charge. — Gaines v. Harvin, 19 Ala. 491.
2. The promise to indulge, copied in the bill of exceptions,is, so far as the proof discloses, without consideration and void. — Agee v. Steele, 8 Ala. 948; Morton v. Barnes, 7 Ad. & El. 19 ; Comegys v. Booth, 3 Stew. 14 ; Wilson v. Bank, 9 Ala. 847 ; Carpenter v. Devon, 6 Ala. 718.
3. The written contract offered in defense, is not the “ foundation of the suit,” and, in this case, does not import a consideration. — Code, § 2278.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment, of the circuit court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
29 Ala. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keep-v-kelly-levin-ala-1856.