Martin v. Hill

Supreme Court of Alabama

Martin v. Hill

8 Ala. 43

DecidedJanuary 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ala. 43 (Martin v. Hill) 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

Martin v. Hill, 8 Ala. 43 (Ala. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

ORMOND, J.

We think this case is within the equity of the statute, providing that joint obligations shall survive against the representatives of the deceased obligors. [Clay’s Dig. 323.] Judgments are not, it is true, specifically mentioned in the statute, but as the obligation itself would have survived, the judgment founded upon it must have the same attribute.

[44]*44The principal reliance of the plaintiff in error, is upon the supposed merger of the judgment of the inferior Court, by the affirmance of that judgment in this Court, against the other defendants and their surety, as was held in Wiswall v. Munroe, 4 Alabama Reports, 9. By the death of Joseph Fitzpatrick, the original judgment, by the operation of the statute above referred to, became several, and might be revived against his representa fives; and if not revived, became a debt due from them to the plaintiff, upon which a suit might beffirought. The prosecution of this claim in the Orphans’ Court, is, in effect, the institution of a suit upon the judgment, which, we have seen, is maintainable. The merger of the judgment against the surviving defendants, has no influence whatever upon this question, as, by the death of Joseph Fitzpatrick, the judgment, as to him became several.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

ORMOND, J.

We think this case is within the equity of the statute, providing that joint obligations shall survive against the representatives of the deceased obligors. [Clay’s Dig. 323.] Judgments are not, it is true, specifically mentioned in the statute, but as the obligation itself would have survived, the judgment founded upon it must have the same attribute.

[44]*44The principal reliance of the plaintiff in error, is upon the supposed merger of the judgment of the inferior Court, by the affirmance of that judgment in this Court, against the other defendants and their surety, as was held in Wiswall v. Munroe, 4 Alabama Reports, 9. By the death of Joseph Fitzpatrick, the original judgment, by the operation of the statute above referred to, became several, and might be revived against his representa fives; and if not revived, became a debt due from them to the plaintiff, upon which a suit might beffirought. The prosecution of this claim in the Orphans’ Court, is, in effect, the institution of a suit upon the judgment, which, we have seen, is maintainable. The merger of the judgment against the surviving defendants, has no influence whatever upon this question, as, by the death of Joseph Fitzpatrick, the judgment, as to him became several.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ala. 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-hill-ala-1845.