Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ala. 626

Chapman v. Weaver

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1851

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1851-06-15

Error.to tbo Circuit Court of Coosa. Tried before ithc Sion. Geo. D. Shortridge. This was an action of debt, instituted in thb name ®f the •.Governor,.for the use of Reuben A. Mitchell, paymaster of the sixty-eighth regiment of Alabama Militia, against the sheriff of • Coosa county and his sureties on his official bond.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1947

4 state decisions

101851186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

COLEMAN, J.

¶1The 6th section of the 13th chapter of the Military Code, approved December 30, 1837, which gives a summary mode of proceeding against sheriffs and constables for failing to collect and pay over, &c., militia fines to the proper paymaster, does not repeal the act giving the paymaster a right to commence a suit against said officers for failing to collect such lines, &c., before any court having jurisdiction thereof. We consider the summary remedy given by the act referred to, as merely cumulative, and not in conflict with the provisions of the law giving the general remedy. The objection, therefore, to the mode of suing here is not well taken.

¶2We think, however, that the declaration is defective in not setting forth the names of the persons against whom the fines were assessed, and the several amounts thereof, as stated in the certificate of the President of the Court Martial. This certificate is made by the statute to operate as a several writ of execution against each of the persons named therein.

¶3The general rule of pleading requires that the cause of action be stated with sufficient certainty, clearness and precision to enable the defendant to prepare to defend himself against the action, and to plead a judgment thereon in bar of another recovery, &c.—1 Chitty’s Pl. 255. We believe the rule is without exception, that whenever it is necessary to produce the process of any court, either to show the inducement to the cause of action or to sustain the action itself, the declaration must substantially describe such process.—2 Chitty 291. As this view of the case shows that the demurrer ought to have been sustained, we have not thought it necessary to notice the other objections.

¶4Let the judgment ho affirmed.

/19/ala/626 · .json · Public domain