Smith v. Hunt

2 Stew. 222
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided July 15, 1829·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By JUDGE PERRY.

It is contended that the plaintiff was bound to prove that he was one of the firm of George Wilkinson & Co. and also the death of his copartner. The position assumed by the counsel for the plaintiff in error cannot be applied to the plaintiff below, inasmuch as it would have formed a good defence for the defendant; and if he wished to avail himself of it, it was incumbent on hjm to shew that there’were other parties [224]*224to the contract who were not joined as plaintiffs in the-action. This he could have done if the objection appeared upon the face of the pleadings, by demurrer, by motion in arrest of judgment, or on error; and though the objection may not appear on the face of the pleadings, the defendant in the court below could have availed himself of it either by plea in abatement, or as a ground of non-suit on the trial, upon the plea of the general issue.

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

Smith v. Hunt, 2 Stew. 222 (Ala. 1829).

2 Stew. 222 (Smith v. Hunt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Starke v. Kenan
11 Ala. 818 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1847)