Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Ala. 288

Massey v. Walker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1846

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1846-06-15

Writ of error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair. Claim interposed, by G. S. Massey, to a slave levied on by attachment, as the property of John Massey, at the suit of Walker. At the trial, the plaintiff offered to read to the jury, as evidence, the note upon which the attachment was sued out, and at the same time offered to read the writ, declaration and judgment in the suit against John Massey.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1846-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1897

8 state decisions

40184618501860187018801890decided

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 →

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

¶11. We think with the plaintiff’s counsel, that to say one is in debt, is just as much a conclusion as to say that one is embarrassed with debts. From the course this notion of conclusions as distinguished from facts, seems to be taking, it is as well to state that the decisions upon this point, refer to conclusions of law, to be deduced from facts which may or may not exist. Such was the decision in Parker v. Haggerthy, 1 Ala. Rep. 730, where we held, that whether one was or was not a tenant, is a legal conclusion. So in Lawson v. Orear, 7 Ib. 784, it is said, the condition of insolvency is a legal conclusion.

¶2There is.no matter which involves a combination of facts, that is not liable to be called a conclusion, if this term is properly applied to the knowledge by one individual that another is embarrassed with debt. There seems to be nothing in this point which requires a more extended consideration.

¶32. It is wholly unnecessary to examine whether the evidence for the claimant was correctly excluded, in the first instance, for however this was, it is certain it went to the jury, and the objection being withdrawn, the exception fell with the admission of the evidence. Conceding the court was mistaken, the claimant afterwards requested no charge upon the effect of these declarations upon his case. It is sufficient to say, that the only matter to which a party can except on the trial of a cause, is the charge, or refusal to charge, upon the evidence, or law of the case.

¶4*291All the other points involved in the assignment of errors are believed to be settled in Yarborough v. Moss, 9 Ala. Rep. 382.

¶5Let the judgment be affirmed.

/10/ala/288 · .json · Public domain