Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook. This action was brought by Whitman & Ousley, as partners, against Lorenzo Dow; was founded on the defendant’s promissory note for $100, dated the 13th September, 1856, jiayable on the 15th October next after date, to the order of J. T. Norman, and transferred by said Norman to plaintiffs; and was commenced by original attachment, sued out before a justice of the peace, on the 30th March, 1858.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1860-06-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1932
12 state decisions
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.
¶3[3.] This case coming up on. appeal, the recital in the amended judgment entry, “that publication was made giving defendant notice according to law,” was not a sufficient compliance with the statute. — Code, § 2510. The recital should show that the publication was made for four consecutive weeks, giving notice of the attachment and levy. — Keiffer v. Barney, 31 Ala. 193 ; Butler v. Butler, 11 Ala. 668; Hartley v. Bloodgood, 16 Ala. 233; Cullum v. Branch Bank, 23 Ala. 797.