Windham v. National Fertilizer. Co.

99 Ala. 578
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 Ala. 578 (Windham v. National Fertilizer. 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.

Bluebook
Windham v. National Fertilizer. Co., 99 Ala. 578 (Ala. 1892).

Opinion

STONE, C. J.

-The return of the sheriff in this case shows that service of the summons and complaint was perfected on all the defendants except one, Z. McKinney. As to him the process was returned “not found.” Judgment by default was taken and entered up against all the defendants. This was error which compels a reversal of the judgment.— Smith v. Winthrop, Minor, 425; Driver v Spence, 3 Ala. 98; Granberry v. Welborn, 4 Ala. 18; Faver v. Briggs, 18 Ala. 478; Childress v. Taylor. 33 Ala. 185; Parker v. Parker, 39 Ala. 347. But as the cause of action sued on is several as well as joint, reversing the judgment as to McKinney does not impair or affect it as to the other defendants who were served with the summons. The only effect of this reversal is to strike his name from the list of defendants against [579]*579whom judgment was' entered, and leave it operative against the others.—Lucy v. Beck, 5 Porter 166.

Beversed in part, but not remanded.

The clerk will certify this opinion and the judgment to to Circuit Court.

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

Related

Krasner v. Gurley
29 So. 2d 224 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
Citizens' State Bank of Ft. Gibson v. Strahan
1916 OK 583 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 Ala. 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windham-v-national-fertilizer-co-ala-1892.