Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Stew. 18

Carter v. Dade

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1827

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1827-01-15

<p>In assumpsit, if verdict be for less than $50, and the plaintiff does not file his affidavit as required by the statute, he cannot have judgements</p> <p>.. Note. In the case of Howard v. Wear, [Minor’s Ala, Rep. 84,] decided at December term, 1822, the contrary doctrine appears to have been held.</p> <p>See Curtis v. Gary, Minor's Ala. Uep. 118.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1827-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1874

4 state decisions

10182718301840185018601870decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JUDGE WHITE

¶1delivered the opinion of the majority of the Court.

¶2The only error assigned is, that the Court had no jurisdiction of the amount in controversy. It was an action of assumpsit, in Clarke Circuit Court. The declaration claimed two hundred dollar's for goods, &c. sold and delivered. On the general issue, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for thirty-nine dollars thirty-two cents. There was no motion for a non suit, or affidavit filed by plaintiff as authorized by the statute, abut the .Court rendered judgement in favor of the plaintiff for the amount assessed by the jury.

¶3The Circuit Court has no original jurisdiction of an action ex contractu, when the amount in controversy is less than fifty dollars, b and as the plaintiff did not file his a¡plc[avit t0 authorize a judgement on the verdict, a majority of the Court are of opinion that it was erroneously rendered. Let the judgement be reversed.

The Chief Justice not present.

¶4 Laws Ala. utj,

¶5constitution Ala.ait, 5, sec. 6.

/1/stew/18 · .json · Public domain