Simmons v. Varnum

36 Ala. 92
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

In a summary proceeding by a surety, against his co-surety, under the first subdivision of section 2645 of the Code, a recovery for more than the defendant’s aliquot part of the debt, after excluding the portion of insolvent sureties, can not be had; and evidence that the defendant was indemnified, adduced for the purpose of procuring a judgment for a. larger, amount, is irrelevant.

[2.] Where a defendant has been served with the legal notice of a proceeding in the circuit court against him, if is not necessary that he should have notice of any subsequent amendment of the pleadings. He is brought into Oourt by the service of the notice, which commences the suit, and is bound afterwards to take notice of all the proceedings in the cause. If an improper amendment is made, the injured party should object at the time, and bring up the question for revision by bill of exceptions.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Simmons v. Varnum, 36 Ala. 92 (Ala. 1860).

36 Ala. 92 (Simmons v. Varnum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bessemer Liquor Co. v. Tillman
139 Ala. 462 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1903)
Ex parte Buckley
53 Ala. 42 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Frank v. State
40 Ala. 9 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1866)
Tuskaloosa Wharf Co. v. Mayor of Tuskaloosa
38 Ala. 514 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1863)