Lindsay v. Barnett

130 Ala. 417
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

The only question presented by this record is the overruling by the court below of the plaintiff’s motion to strike the third plea of the defendant. It is insisted by appellant that this is a plea pms darrein continuance, and as it was not verified his motion to strike should have been sustained. The plea was filed together with other pleas at the first term and before issue joined, and set up payment after suit begun. A plea of puis darrein continuance is a plea filed after issue joined, and setting up matter of defense arising since ihe last 'continuance or after suit commenced. The third plea of the defendant does not come within this characterization and "was not required to be sworn to. Dryer v. Lewis, 57 Ala. 551; McDougald's Admr. v. Rutherford, 30 Ala. 253; Sadler v. Fisher’s Admr., 3 Ala. 200. There was no error in overruling the motion to strike.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Lindsay v. Barnett, 130 Ala. 417 (Ala. 1900).

130 Ala. 417 (Lindsay v. Barnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kemper v. Walker
1 So. 2d 376 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Schillinger v. Leary
77 So. 846 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Jones v. Bell
77 So. 998 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Western Ry. v. Foshee
62 So. 500 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1913)