Weeks v. Napier

Supreme Court of Alabama

Weeks v. Napier

33 Ala. 568

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 33 Ala. 568 (Weeks v. Napier) 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

Weeks v. Napier, 33 Ala. 568 (Ala. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.—

Tbe right of a defendant to dismiss, for want of security for costs, is a right which be, so far as be is concerned, may waive. He will not be permitted to deal with tbe case as one rightly in court; continue, or contribute to tbe continuation of tbe litigation; and, after heavy costs have been incurred, or, perhaps, after be makes tbe discovery that bis defense will be unavailing, then for tbe first time raise tbe objection, that he bad been improperly sued, without security for costs; and for this'omission have tbe cause repudiated. Such practice would work tbe grossest injustice.

In tbe present case, tbe garnishee submitted to tbe jurisdiction of the court, by answering-; excepte.d to tbe action of tbe court in several particulars; made up an issue on tbe truth of bis answer; and, at a subsequent term, moved to dismiss, because tbe plaintiff was a nonresident, and had not given security for costs. Tbe mo[570]*570tion should have been overruled.—See Thompson v. Lea, 28 Ala. 453; Ex parte Robbins, 29 Ala. 71.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and cause remanded.

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

STONE, J.—

Tbe right of a defendant to dismiss, for want of security for costs, is a right which be, so far as be is concerned, may waive. He will not be permitted to deal with tbe case as one rightly in court; continue, or contribute to tbe continuation of tbe litigation; and, after heavy costs have been incurred, or, perhaps, after be makes tbe discovery that bis defense will be unavailing, then for tbe first time raise tbe objection, that he bad been improperly sued, without security for costs; and for this'omission have tbe cause repudiated. Such practice would work tbe grossest injustice.

In tbe present case, tbe garnishee submitted to tbe jurisdiction of the court, by answering-; excepte.d to tbe action of tbe court in several particulars; made up an issue on tbe truth of bis answer; and, at a subsequent term, moved to dismiss, because tbe plaintiff was a nonresident, and had not given security for costs. Tbe mo[570]*570tion should have been overruled.—See Thompson v. Lea, 28 Ala. 453; Ex parte Robbins, 29 Ala. 71.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ala. 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-napier-ala-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack