Lindsey v. Jones

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lindsey v. Jones

23 Ala. 835

DecidedJune 15, 1853

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Ala. 835 (Lindsey v. Jones) 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

Lindsey v. Jones, 23 Ala. 835 (Ala. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

CHILTON, C. J. —

It is perfectly clear that the law arising upon the agreed state of facts is adverse to a recovery on the part of the plaintiff; for, conceding the contract to be valid, he seeks indemnity on account of a payment which the law did not compel him to make, but which we must, under the facts agreed, intend he voluntarily submitted to make. True, a judgment was rendered against him, for services in the Supreme Court; but if it be true that these services were rendered by an attorney not employed by him or some one for him, he had a successful defence. If he failed to make such defence, and submitted to pay, he cannot resort to his contract of indemnity. This contract extends only to such liabilities as the law would recognize and enforce, and not to such as originated in the caprice or negligence of the plaintiff. If, having a good defence, he failed to make it, he cannot charge the defendant with the consequence of his neglect. He alone must bear it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

CHILTON, C. J. —

It is perfectly clear that the law arising upon the agreed state of facts is adverse to a recovery on the part of the plaintiff; for, conceding the contract to be valid, he seeks indemnity on account of a payment which the law did not compel him to make, but which we must, under the facts agreed, intend he voluntarily submitted to make. True, a judgment was rendered against him, for services in the Supreme Court; but if it be true that these services were rendered by an attorney not employed by him or some one for him, he had a successful defence. If he failed to make such defence, and submitted to pay, he cannot resort to his contract of indemnity. This contract extends only to such liabilities as the law would recognize and enforce, and not to such as originated in the caprice or negligence of the plaintiff. If, having a good defence, he failed to make it, he cannot charge the defendant with the consequence of his neglect. He alone must bear it.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ala. 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-jones-ala-1853.