« PreviousContinue »
160 420 400
M'Gowen o. Garrard and Morgan
520 494 225 259 462 169 222 224 255 515 480 11 30 231 360 388 249 474 230 249 509 364
Nicholson and Gee, adm'r
479 | Rushing and Taylor
Sadler et al. and Robinson's heirs, b'c. 225
Saftold et al. and Thompson 162
Sayre Sayre and M'Whorter 329
Sayre v. Lucas 472
Sewall v. Bates' adm'rs 124
Smith v. Hunt 399
Smith v. Davis et al. 470
Snows Ó Cunningham aud Brandon 453
Sommerville et al, and M'Broom 460
Spann v. Boyd 170
State v. Plunket 336
State v. The Tombeckbee Bank 137
State v. Adams 498
State v, Cawood et al. 15
State and Collier 464
Stebbins v. Sutton
Stewart and Lecatt 512 Strang and Lecatt
Suttons and Stebbins
Sugs v. Burgess & Davis 47
Sykes et al. v. Sykes et al. 483 472
Tankersly v. Richardson
Taylor v. Rushing 38
Teague v. Russell Moore 414
Thompson v. Miller 399 Thompson v. Saffold et al. 477
Tombeckbee Bank and The State 445 Townsend and Martin
Wade r. Kelly & Hutchison 11
Wallis v. Murphy 401
Watkins v. Watkins, use of Perkins 498
Weakley v. Brahan Atwood
White adm'r and Martin 86 White ☺ Lesley admʻrs and Wiley & Gayle 438|Wiley Gayle v. White and Lesley, adm’rs
Williams et al, 7. Lewis
Winston v. Moseley 130 || Wright v. Minter 13 42
Young and M'Gowen 6 Wife 80 520 429 Zachariah and Garrard
Oliver and Brannan et al.
130 160 420 470 494
Patton and Keath
15 485 500 102 331 331 41
Rapelye & Smith, survivors, 6c, and Robinson
JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT,
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE DECISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
The Hon. ABNER S. LIPSCOMB, Chief Justice and Judge of the First Circuit.
CONSTANTINE PERKINS, Attorney General.
REPORTS OF CASES
LRQUED AND DETERMINED
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.
CASES DETERMINED AT THE TERM OF THE FIRST MON
DAY IN JANUARY, 1829, AT TUSCALOOSA.
PRESENT AT THIS TERM,
TIE HON. ABNER S. LIPSCOMB, CHIEF JUSTICE; AND THE HON.
BALDWIN v. BROGDEN.
Where a defendant pleads as a set off, a note made by the plaintiff to another
person, and transferred to him, the plaintiff will not be permitted to prove such set off void, as being given for a gambling consideration, without replying such defence specially.
In the Circuit Court of Pike county, I. M. Brogden brought an action of assumpsit against B. Baldwin, on a promissory note made by him, for $109 payable to one D. W. Edgerly or bearer, which by delivery had been transferred to Brogden. The defendant among other pleas pleaded as a set off, that he held a note for a larger sum made by the plaintiff to one Baker, or bearer, which had been duly transferred to him by delivery before the suit was brought, &c. No replication was filed to this plea, and in fact no issue was formally joined. At November term, 1827, a trial by jury was had. The defendant proved his possession of the note pleaded by him as a set off, and that it
JANUARY 1829. had been transferred to him before the suit was brought.
The plaintiff offered evidence to prove that the note pleaded
as a set off, was given for a gaming consideration contraBrogden. ry to the statute; to this evidence the defendant objected,
but the Court overruled the objection and admitted the tes-
The admission of this testimony was the error assigned.
By THE CHIEF JUSTICE. The plaintiff below should have replied to the plea of set off, that the note was given for a gambling consideration. This would have given sufficient notice to the defendant, and he could have been prepared to meet the objection, but it was surely improper to receive the testimony without such a replication
Judgment reversed and causc remanded Judge CRENSHAW not sitting.
PICKENS V. HAYDEN and MERIAM.
In assumpsit, a judgment by default for costs only, and no damages, is er
This was an action of assumpsit determined in Monroe Circuit Court. It was brought by the appellees against the appellant, on a note of hand. At October term, 1822, the following entıy was made: "Judgment by default; whereupon it is considered by the Court that the plaintiffs do recover of the defendant the sum of $- - damages, and costs of suit, &c.”
It was among other things assigned for error, that no damages being recovered, the judgment for costs alone was erroneous.
Parsons and COOPER, for the plaintis in error.