Matthews v. Robinson
20 Ala. 130
Opinion
There was no error in tbe charge. If tbe agreement by tbe defendant in error, to pay all tbe debts of Matthews, could have been set up by tbe plaintiff in error, to protect himself against tbe rendition of tbe judgment against bim as garnishee, be did not insist upon it, but allowed judgment to go against bim. This judgment, so far as this motion is concerned, is conclusive. Tbe summary remedy substituted by our practice in tbe place of tbe audita querela cannot go behind it. Burt v. Hughes, 11 Ala. Rep. 571.
Tbe judgment must be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matthews v. Robinson, 20 Ala. 130 (Ala. 1852).
20 Ala. 130 (Matthews v. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Bradley
143 Ala. 530 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)
Werborn v. Pinney
74 Ala. 591 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)