Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Ala. 312

Buffington v. Cook

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1859-06-15

Tried before the Hon. Alex. MoKinstry, This action was brought by Major Cook, against Thomas M. Buffington, to recover one-half the amount paid by the plaintiff, under execution, on a judgment rendered against him and the defendant jointly, in favor of one E. P. Chappell.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In the suit between Chappell as plaintiff, and Buffington and Cook as defendants, the issue necessarily made by the pleadings was, whether the defendants, or either and which of them, had incurred a legal liability to the plaintiff. As between the two defendants, there was, and probably could be, no issue formed on the relative liabilities of the defendants inter sese. Hence, in that trial, no evidence was or could be properly introduced or examined, having for its object the establishment of such relative liabilities. There is wanting then, in this case, the necessary ingredients of an estoppel by record, as to the fact and measure of liability between Cook and Buffington,. — 1 Greenl. Ev. § 523.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hathcock v. Mitchell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1965

10 state decisions

20185918601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

STONE, J.

¶1In the suit between Chappell as plaintiff’ and Buffington and Cook as defendants, the issue necessarily made by the pleadings was, whether the defendants, or either and which of them, had incurred a legal liability to the plaintiff. As between the two defendants, there was, and probably could be, no issue formed on the relative liabilities of the defendants inter sese. Hence, in that trial, no evidence was or could be properly introduced or examined, having for its object the establishment of such relative liabilities. There is wanting then, in this case, the necessary ingredients of an estoppel by record, as to the fact and measure of liability between Cook and Buffington. — 1 Greenl. Ev. § 523.

¶2[2.] The oral testimony did not authorize the charge which the court gave on the effect of the evidence. It certainly cannot he affirmed that it establishes, without conflict, the right of plaintiff to recover in this action. Shep. Dig. 459, §§13, 14, 15.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

/35/ala/312 · .json · Public domain