Smith v. Allen

142 Ala. 148
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1904·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

This is an action of assumpsit, instituted by Mrs Allen against M. L. Smith, et al.,'in the city court of Talladega for one hundred dollars. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of thirteen and 50-100 dollars. Motion was made by defendants to set aside this judgment and dismiss the suit on the ground that the recovery was for a less amount than that of which the court had jurisdiction, under the provisions of section 3315 of the Code. The motion should have been granted; The action was “on a moneyed demand.” The recovery wa.s below the minimum amount- of the court’s jurisdiction. The amount claimed ivas not reduced “below that of which the court had jurisdiction by a set-off successfully made by the defendants.” Every constituent of the statutory predicate for the motion, therefore, existed. Thé affidavit provided for by the statute to avail the setting aside of the judgment and dismissal of the suit was not made. The court erred in overruling the motion. Its judgment thereon must be reversed and a judgment will he here entered granting said motion, setting aside the judgment for plaintiff and dismissing the suit out of the city court.

Reversed and rendered.

Tyson, Simpson and Anderson, J. J., concurring.

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

Smith v. Allen, 142 Ala. 148 (Ala. 1904).

142 Ala. 148 (Smith v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

T. L. Farrow Mercantile Co. v. Jeffers
80 So. 135 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Woodward Iron Co. v. Keller
74 So. 933 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Manning v. Giles
73 So. 428 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Black v. Ryan
69 So. 633 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
L. & N. R. R. v. McKenzie
59 So. 345 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
O'Reilly v. Masterson
57 So. 1013 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)