Winnemore v. Mathews

Supreme Court of Alabama

Winnemore v. Mathews

45 Ala. 449

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 45 Ala. 449 (Winnemore v. Mathews) 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

Winnemore v. Mathews, 45 Ala. 449 (Ala. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The summons was not signed by the clerk, and the judgment was by default. The summons must be signed by-the clerk, and it is his signature which gives it validity. — -Rev. Code, §§ 2559, 2560; Stone v. Harris, Minor’s Rep. 32; Browder v. Gaston & Wellborn, 30 Ala. 677; Costley v. Driver, present term.

The complaint does not contain a substantial cause of action. By the omission to state who did the work, the plaintiff might recover money to which he had no claim whatever, and another is entitled.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The summons was not signed by the clerk, and the judgment was by default. The summons must be signed by-the clerk, and it is his signature which gives it validity. — -Rev. Code, §§ 2559, 2560; Stone v. Harris, Minor’s Rep. 32; Browder v. Gaston & Wellborn, 30 Ala. 677; Costley v. Driver, present term.

The complaint does not contain a substantial cause of action. By the omission to state who did the work, the plaintiff might recover money to which he had no claim whatever, and another is entitled.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Ala. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winnemore-v-mathews-ala-1871.

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack