M'Alpin v. May

1 Stew. 520
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJuly 15, 1828
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1 Stew. 520 (M'Alpin v. May) 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
M'Alpin v. May, 1 Stew. 520 (Ala. 1828).

Opinion

By JUDGE CRENSHAW.

In argument it was contended that the plea was not well pleaded, and that it ought to have been sworn to. It was said that the plea in its commencement professed to be an answer to the whole declaration, but that it answered only a part, in shewing that the arbitrators had awarded a less sum than was claimed in the action. I am of opinion, that in this respect the plea was well pleaded, and that it was a bar to the action.

But the objection that the plea was not verified by affidavit appears to me to be properly taken. The plea puis darrien -continuance is a waiver or abandonment of all other pleas, and the law requires that it be sworn to, otherwise it cannot be received; nor is it material whether the want of the affidavit be considered a defect in form or substance, since it is clearly such a defect as can be reached by ademurrer. In the case of Buddie against Wilson,

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

Related

McCoy v. Harrell, Nichols & Co.
40 Ala. 232 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1866)
Henry v. Porter
29 Ala. 619 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)
Jessee v. Cater
25 Ala. 351 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1854)
Hunt v. Test
8 Ala. 713 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1845)
McWhorter v. Lewis
4 Ala. 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1842)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Stew. 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malpin-v-may-ala-1828.