Sauls v. Carmichael

Supreme Court of Alabama

Sauls v. Carmichael

37 Ala. 87

DecidedJune 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 37 Ala. 87 (Sauls v. Carmichael) 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

Sauls v. Carmichael, 37 Ala. 87 (Ala. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

R. W. WALKER, J.

If we look alone to the minute entry of the 26th April,' 1859, there may be some uncertainty as to whether it was for Wickham ¿ or for Sauls, that Pruitt then became surety. But the judgment entry which was made on the 27th April, 1859, sufficiently shows that Pruitt was at that time bound as surety for Sauls. In-the margin of this latter entry, the parties to the case, as-it then stood, are named, Sauls being the plaintiff; and the-minutes recite the fact, that Pr'uitthad “acknowledged himself security for costs in this behalf,” the obvious meaning of which is, that he was surety for Sauls. At any rate, the language is susceptible of that construction ; and that is enough to induce us to adopt it, if, by so doing, we can affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Where the record is so obscure, that it does- not distinctly appear-upon what state of facts the judgment of the court below was-rendered, the presumption is-in favor of the judgment, and-, it will be affirmed. — Stone v. Stone, 1 Ala. 582 ; Pender v. Felts, 2 Sm. & M. 589.

Judgment affirmed.

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

R. W. WALKER, J.

If we look alone to the minute entry of the 26th April,' 1859, there may be some uncertainty as to whether it was for Wickham ¿ or for Sauls, that Pruitt then became surety. But the judgment entry which was made on the 27th April, 1859, sufficiently shows that Pruitt was at that time bound as surety for Sauls. In-the margin of this latter entry, the parties to the case, as-it then stood, are named, Sauls being the plaintiff; and the-minutes recite the fact, that Pr'uitthad “acknowledged himself security for costs in this behalf,” the obvious meaning of which is, that he was surety for Sauls. At any rate, the language is susceptible of that construction ; and that is enough to induce us to adopt it, if, by so doing, we can affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Where the record is so obscure, that it does- not distinctly appear-upon what state of facts the judgment of the court below was-rendered, the presumption is-in favor of the judgment, and-, it will be affirmed. — Stone v. Stone, 1 Ala. 582 ; Pender v. Felts, 2 Sm. & M. 589.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ala. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sauls-v-carmichael-ala-1860.

Opinion

R. W. WALKER, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack