Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Ala. 527

Bell v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1845

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1845-06-15

Writ of Error to the County Court of Mobile. Thomas, on the 25th January, 1845, sued process of monition and seizure upon a libel filed by him against the steamboat Du-quesne, alledging that the boat then was lying at the harbor of Mobile; that he, at the instance of the master of the said boat, performed services on board the same as second engineer, at $50 per month, in all amounting to $169, the particulars and items of which appear by an account filed.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1857

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1845-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

¶11. The judgment in this case, so far as the plaintiffs in error are concerned, seems to have been prematurely rendered, inasmuch as the condition of the bond is. to deliver the boat to the sheriff on a particular day, or'to pay the judgment of the Court. In point of fact, the day fixed for the delivery 'of the boat, is the same as that upon which the judgment was rendered. It is essentially different from a stipulation tp pay the amount for which judgment shall be rendered. It seems to have,been taken under the act of 1841, [Dig. 140, § 28,] and varies in its legal effect from that required by the previous act of 1836. [Dig. 139,. §23.]

¶22. It is not important to inquire whether-the bond taken is in precise conformity with that required by statute, for if it .was va*529riant from that, and could only be supported as a common law obligation, yet it is within the jurisdiction of a Court, proceeding according to the course of admiralty practice, to render judgment on such an obligation as an incident to the principal cause. [The Allegator, 1 Gall. 145.]

¶3The other questions raised in the cause, question the sufficiency of the judgment of condemnation against the boat, and cannot be investigated by individuals interested only as stipulators. [Livingston v. Steamboat Tallapoosa, 9 Porter, 111; Witherspoon v. Wallis, 2 Ala. Rep. 667.

¶4For the premature judgment against the stipulators in the bond, the judgment, so far as it affects them, must be reversed, and if the plaintiff chooses, he may proceed to fix their liability.

¶5Reversed as to Bell and Casey.

/8/ala/527 · .json · Public domain