Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Ala. 157

Steed v. Barnhill

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1881-12-15

Tried before lion. LeRov F. Box. This was a suit brought by J. L. Barnhill against R. F. Steed, W. A. Steed and W. D. Steed, and was founded on a promissory note; executed by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and a failure of consideration. Other special pleas were also filed by the defendant ~W. D. Steed, which need not be set out in this report.

Relies on Porter v. Cotney

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Nunc Pro Tunc”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1922

5 state decisions

2018811890190019101920decided

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 →

SOMERVILLE, J.

¶1The usual rule is, that a judgment rendered against several pei-sons who are jointly liable, is an entirety, and'-if it is void as to one defendant, it is void as to all. The statute, however, makes all written obligations and promises, of any description, several as well as joint, and authorizes a recovery against one or more, as the facts may justify. Code of 1876, §§ 2905, 2919; Freeman on Judgments, § 136.

¶2The rulings of the court so declared the law, and were correct.

¶3The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. The reasonable intendment is that the-word defmda/rvt in the verdict of the jury was used for defenda/nts — a mere clerical misprision, which will not prevent the judgment from being supported by the verdict.-Porter v. Cotney, 3 Ala. 314; Meeker Childress, Minor, 109.

¶4Affirmed.

/71/ala/157 · .json · Public domain