¶1It is believed that the Circuit Court did right in overruling the demurrer. The defendant was informed of the judgement against the plaintiff; for his covenant was to pay that judgement, and by the terms of the instrument which he had executed, he was bound to pay in prtesenti. The plaintiff certainly was not required to wait until his property was levied on and exposed to sale by the sheriff to make the money, and thus subject him" *347self to the very situation which his covenant with the defendant was intended to avoid; nor was he bound to givt-notice to the defendant that the sheriff was urging him for the money. The defendant had all the knowledge necessary to enable him to perform his part of the agreement, and he had ample time afforded him to do so. Let the judgement be affirmed.
1 Stew. 345
Somerville v. Jones
Decided January 15, 1828
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1828-01-15
William S. Jones brought an action of covenant against Alexander Somerville, in the Circuit Court of Franklin county, and declared for the breach of a contract made between the parties on the 8th of January, 1823, in which there was a variety of stipulations concerning the shipment and proceeds of a crop of cotton ; and wherein among other things, Somerville obligated himself “to pay and discharge a judgement which had been obtained against Jones as the administrator of one…
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1879
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1828-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →