Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Stew. & P. 392

Cook v. Drew

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1833

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1833-01-15

<p>I. To authorise a reversal of a case, in the Supreme court, there must be a concurrence, by a majority of the court, in the result of a conclusion on some point, presented by the record, though the views, or reasons in arriving at such conclusion, be different.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1973

3 state decisions

10183318401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Saffold, J.

¶1Under the views taken of this case by the court, it is unnecessary to give its history, or notice any of the facts presented by the record.— The principle of our decision has no particular application to the questions involved in the case. The only motive for saying more than merely to pronounce the result, is, to settle a rule of practice, by which, we expect to be governed in future.

¶2In this case it is found that more than one dis-" tinct point is presented for adjudication. One member of the court is for a reversal on one of the points; another on a different point; and the' third thinks there is no error in the record. Hence it results, • that though a majority believe there is error, this majority cannot concur as to the point, or matter, for reversal, so as to determine any principle of decision. Then, when the third voice is heard, it gives *393a majority against the reversal, on each point of exception.

¶3We do not consider it necessary that the majority should agree in the views or reasons by which wé arrive at any particular conclusion, but, to authorise a reversal, this concurrence is required in the result, on some material point, necessarily involved in the case.

¶4The judgment must be affirmed.

/3/stewp/392 · .json · Public domain