¶1The sci.fa. required the plaintiff ip. error to appear and show cause why the judgment against his intestate should not be revived, as to the costs, against him as administrator, &c., the damages having been paid — and the court awarded execution for the costs in the usual form against an administrator. As the sci. fa. stated all the matters of substance, there was no error in overruling the demurrer. The sci. fa. did not state the amount of the costs, but the judgment was otherwise substantially described, which was sufficient. The sci. fa. was but a continuation of the former suit, and the execution awarded can only issue for the costs that were recovered, the amount of which is never, in our practice, stated in the judgment, but they are taxed by the clerk, and if he should commit an error, the remedy is easy. The judgment is affirmed.
19 Ala. 78
Barron v. Tart
Decided January 15, 1851
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1851-01-15
There was no error in overruling the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s sci.fa., as it contains everything necessary to be set out in a declaration. — See Plarris’ Entries, 465 — see sci. fa. The plaintiff below bad the same right to recover Ms costs that he had to recover his debt.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1929
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1851-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →