Porter v. Burleson & Davis

38 Ala. 343
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

The action in this case was not “founded on any instrument of writing ascertaining the plaintiffs demand.” The rendering of a" judgment final, without th'e intervention of a jury, was not authorized by the statute ; and, upon a principle -repeatedly announced in this court, such action on the part of the court below was erroneous.^Code, § 2366 , Moreland v. Ruffin, Minor, 18 ; Philips v. Malone, ib. 110 ; Byrne v. Harris, ib. 286 ; Petigrew v. Petigrew, 1 Stew. 850 ; Chapman v. Arrington, 3 Stew. 480; Kennon v. McRae, 3 St. & P. 249 ; Amason v. Nash, 24 Ala., 279; Beville v. Reese, 25 Ala. 451; Connoly v. Ala. & Tenn. Rivers Railroad Co., 29 Ala. 373.

Reversed and remanded..

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

Porter v. Burleson & Davis, 38 Ala. 343 (Ala. 1862).

38 Ala. 343 (Porter v. Burleson & Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Florida Nursery & Trading Co. v. Watson
77 So. 391 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Manhattan Fire Insurance v. Fowler & Co.
76 Ala. 372 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Warwick v. Brooks
67 Ala. 252 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Rhea v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co.
59 Ala. 182 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)