Lampley v. Beavers

25 Ala. 534
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 25 Ala. 534 (Lampley v. Beavers) 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
Lampley v. Beavers, 25 Ala. 534 (Ala. 1854).

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J. —

We have frequently held, that a general appearance by the defendant cures the want of service of process, and is a waiver of any defect or irregularity in the service. — Gilbert v. Lane, 3 Porter 267; Naylor v. Phillips, 3 Stew. 210; Wheeler v. Bullard, 6 Porter 352; Hobson v. Emanuel, 8 ib. 442; Moore v. Phillips, ib. 567.— If the defendants had only appeared for the purpose of moving to set aside the service of the writ, this would not be a general appearance ; but if they took any action in relation to the case, disconnected with the motion, and which recognized the case as in court, this would be such an appearance as would waive the defect in the process or service, and it would be immaterial whether the motion to set aside the service of the writ was pending at the time of the appearance. The record shows that, after the return term, the defendants appeared, and at their motion the case was taken froip the appearance docket, and placed on the trial docket, and that subsequently to this they appeared, and the case was continued at their instance no less than three times ; that all of this was before the motion to dismiss was acted on. Upon the principle we have laid down, the appearance by the defendants, and the making of the motions, was a waiver of any previous irregularity in the process.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Related

Ex Parte Cullinan
139 So. 255 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Ex Parte Tucker
94 So. 276 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Tucker v. Quick
94 So. 275 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Fulton v. Ramsey
68 S.E. 381 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1910)
Merchants' Laclede Nat. Bank v. Troy Grocery Co.
43 So. 208 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Fisher, Sons & Co. v. Crowley
50 S.E. 422 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)
Sloan v. Hudson
119 Ala. 27 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Carter v. O'Bryan Bros.
105 Ala. 305 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Rosenberg v. Claflin Co.
95 Ala. 249 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1891)
Beckert v. Whitlock
83 Ala. 123 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Grigg v. Gilmer
54 Ala. 425 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Noles v. Marable
50 Ala. 366 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1874)
Pool v. Minge
50 Ala. 100 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1873)
Moore v. Dickerson
44 Ala. 485 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1870)
Bowin & Co. v. Sutherlin
44 Ala. 278 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1870)
Johnson v. West
43 Ala. 689 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1869)
Monts v. Stepens
43 Ala. 217 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1869)
McDowell v. Mitcham
37 Ala. 417 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)
Thompson v. Clopton
31 Ala. 647 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Gager v. Doe, ex dem. Gordon
29 Ala. 341 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Ala. 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampley-v-beavers-ala-1854.