Mays v. Hassell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Mays v. Hassell

4 Stew. & P. 222

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 15, 1833·Published

Opinion

Lipscomb, C. J.

In this case, a verdict had been rendered by the jury, but no judgment was entered upon it, till after the expiration of three years.— The judgment was rendered nunc pro tunc, on the verdict.

The only error relied on is the entering up this judgment after the expiration of three years, from the term when it should have been rendered. The parties were ail before the Court, as it appears from the record. We are therefore of opinion, that according to the case of Wilkinson vs. Goldthwait,a decided at the July term, 1831, of this Court, the judgment must be affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Lipscomb, C. J.

In this case, a verdict had been rendered by the jury, but no judgment was entered upon it, till after the expiration of three years.— The judgment was rendered nunc pro tunc, on the verdict.

The only error relied on is the entering up this judgment after the expiration of three years, from the term when it should have been rendered. The parties were ail before the Court, as it appears from the record. We are therefore of opinion, that according to the case of Wilkinson vs. Goldthwait,a decided at the July term, 1831, of this Court, the judgment must be affirmed.

Footnotes

Mays v. Hassell, 4 Stew. & P. 222 (Ala. 1833).

Pincite

4 Stew. & P. 222 (Mays v. Hassell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.