Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Goldthwaite
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for rehearing and affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff's claims under railroad discrimination statutes were properly decided and not in conflict with controlling precedent.
Excerpt
<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Russell.</p> <p>Assumpsit, by Ann Palmer, for the use of Jesse A. Palmer, against Severance & Stewart, as the joint makers of a promissory note. At the trial, it was proved the note was given for the loan of money at usurious interest, and that the principal 'sum had been paid previous to the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff then put in evidence, tending to shew that the usee was induced by Severance to trade for the note, by his assurance that the note was good, and he would pay it if the usee would wait with him until Christmas; but there was no evidence connecting the other defendant with these declarations.</p> <p>The court charged the jury, they could not find a verdict in favor of the defendant, Stewart, and against the other defendant ; but that if the defence relied on was sustained, as to one of the defendants, the verdict should be in favor of the defendants generally. The plaintiff thereupon took a non-suit, and éxcepted to the opinion of the court.</p> <p>That is here assigned as error.</p> <p>insisted, the effect of the statute, making joint obligations, &c., joint and several, [Digest, 323, § 61,] was to warrant a verdict against one, and for another joint promissor. [Ivy v. Gamble, 7 Porter, 645; Severance v,- Palmer; 9 Ala. Rep. 53.]</p> <p>cited True v. Clark, 3 Bibb, 295 ; Hall v. Rochester, 3 Cowen, 374, Williams v. McFail, 2 S. & R. 281; Tidd’s Prac. 591.</p>
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.