Steed v. Barnhill

71 Ala. 157
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1881·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The usual rule is, that a judgment rendered against several pei-sons who are jointly liable, is an entirety, and'-if it is void as to one defendant, it is void as to all. The statute, however, makes all written obligations and promises, of any description, several as well as joint, and authorizes a recovery against one or more, as the facts may justify. Code of 1876, §§ 2905, 2919; Freeman on Judgments, § 136.

The rulings of the court so declared the law, and were correct.

The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. The reasonable intendment is that the-word defmda/rvt in the verdict of the jury was used for defenda/nts — a mere clerical misprision, which will not prevent the judgment from being supported by the verdict.-Porter v. Cotney, 3 Ala. 314; Meeker Childress, Minor, 109.

Affirmed.

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

Steed v. Barnhill, 71 Ala. 157 (Ala. 1881).

71 Ala. 157 (Steed v. Barnhill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Denham v. Yancey
95 So. 201 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Guin v. Grasselli Chemical Co.
72 So. 413 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Borkowski v. Janicke
157 S.W. 125 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
First National Bank v. Dawson
78 Ala. 67 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Burns & Co. v. Moore & McGee
76 Ala. 339 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)