Smith v. Wiley

Supreme Court of Alabama

Smith v. Wiley

19 Ala. 216

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1851

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 Ala. 216 (Smith v. Wiley) 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

Smith v. Wiley, 19 Ala. 216 (Ala. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

CHILTON, J.

Tbe only question for our consideration is, whether there was such a want of conformity between the writ and declaration, as to justify the court in rejecting the latter. It was said in Sexton v. Roane, 1 Ala. 830, that the design of the Legislature, in requiring the cause of action to be endorsed upon the writ, was to apprise the defendant of the matter in controversy, so that he might not be taken on surprise, &c.— We think there could have been no surprise -in this case. The suit by the plaintiff below was brought in his individual capacity, and the writ and declaration agree as to the character in which he sues. The cause of action as endorsed -on the writ substantially agrees with that described in the count; at all events, there is not such a radical departure or variance, as under our decisions, authorized the court to reject the declaration. -See Tenison v. Martin, 13 Ala. 27, and cases cited. Whether .the bond declared on is not assets of the estate of Smith, is a question which cannot be presented in this way, and one which we do not now decide.

The judgment of the Circuit Court, reversing the judgment -of the County Court, must be affirmed.

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

CHILTON, J.

Tbe only question for our consideration is, whether there was such a want of conformity between the writ and declaration, as to justify the court in rejecting the latter. It was said in Sexton v. Roane, 1 Ala. 830, that the design of the Legislature, in requiring the cause of action to be endorsed upon the writ, was to apprise the defendant of the matter in controversy, so that he might not be taken on surprise, &c.— We think there could have been no surprise -in this case. The suit by the plaintiff below was brought in his individual capacity, and the writ and declaration agree as to the character in which he sues. The cause of action as endorsed -on the writ substantially agrees with that described in the count; at all events, there is not such a radical departure or variance, as under our decisions, authorized the court to reject the declaration. -See Tenison v. Martin, 13 Ala. 27, and cases cited. Whether .the bond declared on is not assets of the estate of Smith, is a question which cannot be presented in this way, and one which we do not now decide.

The judgment of the Circuit Court, reversing the judgment -of the County Court, must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ala. 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-wiley-ala-1851.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack