Keith v. Cliatt

59 Ala. 408
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

STONE, J.—

The present record comes before us in a very imperfect state. There is neither summons, complaint or plea. Still, the judgment entry recites that the parties came by attorneys, that issues were joined which were submitted to a jury, that the jury returned a verdict, upon which the judgment of the court was pronounced. On this recital we are bound to presume that both parties were in court by proper service, or voluntary appearance, that a complaint containing a substantial cause of action was filed, and that issues were formed thereon. The record affirms all this, and the record imports absolute verity.—See Deslonde v. Darrington, 29 Ala. 92; 1 Brick. Dig. 782, §§ 133, 127.

The supersedeas bond also recites that such judgment was rendered.

The judgment entry recites that plaintiff had leave to amend his complaint; but we can not learn that such amendment was made, or if made, in what it consisted. The judgment rendered is in favor of H. J. and- B. F. Cliatt; [409]*409.and the supersedeas bond is payable to them, and recites a judgment rendered in their favor.

Judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed.

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

Keith v. Cliatt, 59 Ala. 408 (Ala. 1877).

59 Ala. 408 (Keith v. Cliatt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Box v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
168 So. 209 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1934)
Lacey v. Pearce
68 So. 46 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Thomason
55 So. 115 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)