O'Reilly v. Masterson

Alabama Court of Appeals

O'Reilly v. Masterson

57 So. 1013, 3 Ala. App. 666, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 456

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 So. 1013 (O'Reilly v. Masterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Reilly v. Masterson, 57 So. 1013, 3 Ala. App. 666, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 456 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, P. J.

This was an action of debt for the recovery of the statutory penalty for destroying, injuring, or removing trees.—Code, § 6035; Higdon v. Kennemer, 120 Ala. 193, 24 South. 439. To such an action the statute (Code, § 5355), applies which requires that if a suit be brought on a moneyed demand “for an amount of which the court has jurisdiction, and a less sum be recovered, unless the amount is reduced by a set-off successfully made by the defendant, the judgment must be set aside and the snit dismissed, unless the plaintiff, or some one for him, make affidavit, which must be filed in the cause, that an amount of which the court has jurisdiction, stating the same, is actually due, and that a recovery for the true amount was prevented by failure of proof, the interposition of the statute of limitations, or some other sufficient cause, to be judged of by the court.” The suit was for an amount of which the court had jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs’ recovery was less than the minimum sum of which the court has jurisdiction. The defendant interposed no claim of set-off, and the affidavit authorized in such case by the statute just quoted was not made. The amount of the plaintiffs’ recovery not having been reduced by a set-off, in the absence of such affidavit the verdict and judgment could not, under the statute, be supported by the complaint in the case Obedience to the .statute requires that the judgment be set aside and the suit dismissed.—Smith, et al. v. Allen, 142 Ala. 148, 37 South. 933.

Reversed and rendered.

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

WALKER, P. J.

This was an action of debt for the recovery of the statutory penalty for destroying, injuring, or removing trees.—Code, § 6035; Higdon v. Kennemer, 120 Ala. 193, 24 South. 439. To such an action the statute (Code, § 5355), applies which requires that if a suit be brought on a moneyed demand “for an amount of which the court has jurisdiction, and a less sum be recovered, unless the amount is reduced by a set-off successfully made by the defendant, the judgment must be set aside and the snit dismissed, unless the plaintiff, or some one for him, make affidavit, which must be filed in the cause, that an amount of which the court has jurisdiction, stating the same, is actually due, and that a recovery for the true amount was prevented by failure of proof, the interposition of the statute of limitations, or some other sufficient cause, to be judged of by the court.” The suit was for an amount of which the court had jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs’ recovery was less than the minimum sum of which the court has jurisdiction. The defendant interposed no claim of set-off, and the affidavit authorized in such case by the statute just quoted was not made. The amount of the plaintiffs’ recovery not having been reduced by a set-off, in the absence of such affidavit the verdict and judgment could not, under the statute, be supported by the complaint in the case Obedience to the .statute requires that the judgment be set aside and the suit dismissed.—Smith, et al. v. Allen, 142 Ala. 148, 37 South. 933.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 1013, 3 Ala. App. 666, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oreilly-v-masterson-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack