Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 Ala. 546

Weeks v. Yeend

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1894

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1894-11-15

Tried before the Hon. James T. Jones. This was a summary proceeding under section 3151 of the Code, by one alleged co-surety against another, whereby the plaintiff, who is appellee here, sought, on a motion made for the purpose, a summary judgment against the defendant, D. W. Weeks, upon the ground that plaintiff's intestate and defendant were co-sureties on the administration bond of one Hall, who had been appointed administrator of the estate of one Dowty, deceased, and…

Relies on Warwick v. Brooks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1931

3 state decisions

1018941900191019201930decided

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 →

BRICKELL, C. J.

¶1This was a summary proceeding by notice and motion under the the statute, (Code, § 3151), by the personal representative of a deceased surety, to recover contribution from a surviving co-surety. A judgment by default was rendered against the co-surety, and there was the award of a writ of inquiry to ascertain the damages the'plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury returned a verdict assessing the damages, and *548for the damages assessed a final judgment was rendered, from which appeal was taken.

¶2So far as shown by the record, there was no evidence that the relation of sureties existed between the • appellant and the intestate of the appellee, or of a common liability, or of the extent of such liability, or if such liability existed, of its satisfaction by the appellee or his intestate. These were the essential facts entitling the appellee to pursue this remedy. The uniform rulings of ' this court, since the introduction of summary proceedings of this character, have been, that a judgment by default therein rendered can not be supported on error, unless the record affirmatively discloses the existence of every fact entitling the party to such remedy. — 2 Brick. Dig. 466, § 1; Warwick v. Brooks, 70 Ala. 412.

¶3The judgment is reversed, andjthe cause remanded.

/104/ala/546 · .json · Public domain