Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Ala. 309

Ritch v. Thornton

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1880

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1880-11-15

Tried before the Hon. John Henderson. This action was brought by R. S. Thornton, against J. R. Ritch and T. L. Bryant; and was commenced by attachment against the defendants’ crop, raised on lands rented to them by the plaintiff during the year 1878. The attachment was sued out on the 28th October, 1878, on the ground that the defendants had removed a portion of the crop from the rented premises, without the landlord’s permission, and without paying the rent due for the year.

Relies on Patterson v. Ware

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1946

12 state decisions

501880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

BEICKELL, C. J.

¶1— The errors assigned in this cause have been examined, and are not available to reverse the judgment. It is conceded by the counsel for the appellants, that the complaint contains a substantial cause of action— that it was unnecessary to aver specially that the contract declared upon was in writing. The Code declares, that “ no judgment can be arrested, or annulled, or set aside, for any matter not previously objected to, if the complaint contains a substantial cause of actipn.” — Code of 1876, § 3158. If it be admitted, that it can be fairly collected from the record that the contract, the foundation of the suit, was not in writing, and therefore was void under the statute of frauds, the invalidity of the contract was matter of defense, which was waived by the failure to plead it. Patterson v. Ware, 10 Ala. 444.

¶2A judgment rendered upon, and conforming to a verdict, can not be reversed, Jbecause the damages exceed the amount claimed, or the amount really due. The remedy is by motion for a new trial in the court below, where the error may be cured by a release of the excess, or such other order made as the justice of the case may require. — 1 Brick. Dig. 776, § 39. If the excess of ten cents, now claimed, is not within the curative influence of the maxim, lex de minimis non curat, from its burdens the appellants ought to have obtained relief, by a motion to the primary court.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

/65/ala/309 · .json · Public domain