Stockdale v. Riddle & Co.
This text of 22 Ala. 678 (Stockdale v. Riddle & Co.) 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.
Opinion
The principle involved in the present case is identical with the case of Snow & Co. v. Ray, 2 Ala. 344, in which case the warrant and the judgment stated the plaintiffs by the name of Charles Snow & Co., the statement in the County Court setting forth the individuals who composed the firm, and the statement was held to be good. In the present case, no statement was required, the amount in controversy being under twenty dollars; and the evidence was properly introduced, in order that the names of the firm might be set out in the judgment.
[679]*679In tbe case of James Reid & Co. v. McLeod, 20 Ala. 576, a different doctrine was held, in cases pending in the Circuit Court; but it is not in conflict with the case first cited, which rests upon reasons applicable to proceedings before justices, in which the same strictness is not required as in the higher courts.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 Ala. 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockdale-v-riddle-co-ala-1853.