Mathieson v. Thompson

31 Ala. 500
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 Ala. 500 (Mathieson v. Thompson) 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
Mathieson v. Thompson, 31 Ala. 500 (Ala. 1858).

Opinion

RICE, C. J.

— “ The pay of ajuror” — that is, of a regular juror — “ duiing his attendance,” is the pay allowed by section 2256 of the Code to a garnishee whose answer is not controverted. That pay includes mileage, as well as the per-diem. allowance. — Code, § 3481. The reason for allowing it to a garnishee is stronger than for allowing it to a juroi*. A juror can not be required to serve out of his [501]*501county. A garnishee may be required to answer orally in any court in the State, however distant from his home. Code, § 2540. The penalty for the failure of a juror to attend can not exceed one hundred dollars. — Code, § 3455. The loss which may result from the failure of a garnishee to answer, is bounded only by the plaintiff’s claim, however great that may be. — Code, § 2545. The defaulting juror can be fined only once for failing to attend the court. The defaulting garnishee may be rendered liable for the claim of every plaintiff who causes him to be summoned. And although the language of the sections of the Code, •which relate to the questions presented for our decision in this case, is obscure, and certainly admits of a construction different from that which we here adopt; yet we are fully persuaded that the construction here given carries out the real intention of the law-makers. We decide, that a garnishee, whose answer is not controverted, is entitled to mileage, as well as per-diem compensation ; and that he is entitled thereto against the plaintiff in each garnishment, however many garnishments there may be, and notwithstanding they are all returnable to the same term. We think the rulings of the court below correct:, and affirm the judgment.

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

Related

Pepperell Manufacturing Co. v. Alabama National Bank
75 So. 2d 665 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)
Salvo v. Coursey
87 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Ala. 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathieson-v-thompson-ala-1858.