fendant’s
full,
vision of
ceptions
port
pistol.
written
quest,
fort
trial
play
ord,
peal
typewritten
when taken in
willing
ever,
killing,
ther of said
on trial. For
er,
to write to all of the
ruling
any
the two said
municated
This
motive,
ness to
ant
to the witness Hattie
tha Cole
against George at the time when
tain measurement
constituted
good-bye?”
ination in the technical
error in the action of the trial court in over
v.
It was of
this
any community
as to how it was that
the trial court did
able
way.
action of
one state’s witness to be asked whether he 1923, 7400,
was a brother of another state’s
low the witness
So.
So.
discretion
Appellant’s
[1] We
[4] We can see no
[5] The
State,
there
709;
trial.
language
discussion from we canuot undertake
shoot,
form. White
where it did not
bestowed
the verdict returned
two
court was
a
testimony
counsel
There was no error
in
we think it
defendant’s
wonderful amount
charges given
testify
She
on the
reserved
only a
Shumate v.
carefully worded,
find therein
law
allowing
requested
very
the trial court
Husch
course
question put
argument
say
reposed
purpose
on another
hold as
seems to us to be
brief and
sought
denied
Ala.
witnesses
Standing
governing
no
witnesses
this reason
threat or
used
fact,
counsel have
in
on their client’s cause. How-
voluminous
carefully
very
in
comparatively
tended
of interest
connection
on
their
65,
gave
the nature
objection
to
it did not
or reason for
written
State,
testify
any
us,
error the action of the
accurate and
contentions
made as to
State,
firmed. or where it is judgment by appellate personal property cover in detinue.” would either where inue” held complaint fendant, immaterial. ed, affirmed. ty; under section 9467 of the pellee. without lows: fendant additional 8. Trial cite where evidence is 398; I-Iendley J.. tion as to the entire 7. Detinue on, referring as set out in debt was for was then property only. 6. Witnesses sumpsit, brought by second count declared on the cent, penalty “The fact that defendant Action with counts in detinue and in as- mortgage note, which also was Counsel Hugh Reed, Counsel discuss the SAMFORD, Costs Appeal Ashley. Affirmative That Instruction that Question W. W. held Peters O. McCord §6153). held, <&wkey;>l43. appeals. Corrected, and, 1923, 6153, providing citing jury <&wkey;>260(l) required and error was in properly permit purchase money argue Haralson, Judge. will not Judgment properly refused to &wkey;>275(6). to other in detinue found Nolen, J. on affirmance of 'substantially the note. This authorities. charges & corrected and affirmed than value “plaintiff Chabert, conflicting. Center, refused as plaintiff Son, permit on affirmance of &wkey;>l070(l). —Statute for indebtedness render is reversed and excluded, M. L. Hill The first reversed and questions raised, upon mortgage defendant, claimed certain and Code of plaintiff, on cross-examina- Gadsden, properly providing recovery Cherokee Coun- promise misleading. for 10 and not to de- irrelevant, appellant. sued for until be indebted to the note sued against since as correct- authorized as 1923, pro- rately by rendered, and de- t refused, plaintiff and af- in det- money to re- apply, sued causes of action arise out does responding pay fol- been but per W. the amount from a it could to chattels tels in the claim $118.50. When the defendant therein, and the facts show that tion thereupon or related tained under the torney’s fees, under certain conditions named were found under and ex contractu viding counts therefore ascertainment dered responding note. The same evidence Therefore a verdict ceeding 7400 of the Code Of its In such cases the issue separately due found for an due on the ditions existed at the time of such Code of the court complaint due. plaintiff conditional amount due on the count 1 of the which it been the same amount for which self-contradictory. der 1923, complaint suggested action or [3] If the instrument [2] value at authority d provided brought The claim under attorney’s part In this case the each The verdict for answer to (cid:127) for specie, simple 1923, may under count Whatever was due relate to the arose out of the same transaction render a to the second count should be determined to the first note under count sale, required of the Code thereupon due. on the debt as secured complaint thereby the same damages suit for the for under section 7400 of the plaintiff the verdict joining adduced, fees became a and ascertained the the amount due on the were section count note was as claim count to do note, and, mortgage. proper ascertaining plaintiff Where this is to ascertain the amount the first upon properly defendant, acting $98.50. of actions ex on the second- became the under this same same count, subject-matter; both counts of the and the evidencing may “proper judgment,” even as to both counts. the count possession of the same sued under the verdict judgment. under ascertaining giving made, The verdict subject-matter. if the suit had be determined found for the- legally bringing suit, suggested under section in the sum of count oí the as a Further should the amount coprt court ren count 1 as those con where the issues upon judgment, done, was on a count the title ignoring changed and the duty of chat amount sugges delicto count, ascer trans- sepa shall pro also- at of' Digests and Indexes other cases see same in all tonic ©toFor 'plaintiff immaterial. This, however, tween defendant. The the court could not sion er suit and execution. examination, first count is under because, property must dict under the second count amount of the debt ascertained under the reduced the defendant case If, ment. der the first ed the tiff ecution the $118.50, ages hence, responding to the first bound that a court must enter a ing judgments dered go by and ordered execution have been that was of judgment jury, ascertained had been less the gether Under the [5] It is true than the value of the on together no further other; both repossessed here. that the amount of the debt was then the referred to other the amount assessed by the second debt with the costs would Code issued, by when the might rendered not to other rendering in such under, as least, misleading. that The whereas judgment count for as ascertained with all one first bu-t ex and second by value fixed sued for and an sued for as fixed adjudge voluntarily they responding sued for as assessed judgment cannot be then the debt is have a become that the hand, amount. If, be that of the amount assessed the second count would be while the property only, judgment a case after now stand REEVES s. had, jury, together judgment necessitate, costs, proceed property, 1923 should the alternate its value. writ arrived at the conclu then on that count should would have he was by is fixed This at his counts, would also the debt as issue. than tHe value But such is not judgment protect- by judgment is a satisfy defendant, was, dependent upon sued for the court could paid, irrelevant One the on the verdict distringas execution debt due & reason of second by the value and the ver must render and cost of and not to Addie the amount affirmed. conflict be Upon Proceeding- CO. for, the would either value assessed pear election. protect- provide for the V. great cross- plain- $118.- costs, these judg- jury; dam- or ment in ren- PINE HILL The the was in to- is- -whom plaintiffs Motion deceased Mercantile individual upon, dent’s administrator, by plaintiffs ty ; cause tach, penalty abate the appeal. Abatement pellant versed and ruled. was forced in accordance with this appeals ference is one J. S. REEVES & fendant to and affirm in the instant case is the if the dered. The sues 6153 of the rected to were affirmative *3 ' sued to and served in 12 months of decedent’s death as condition quires 1923,§ Opinion extended, and Let Corrected and affirmed. reviving in the case was the CANTILE CO. et conformity administrator within months of dece- be revived in name of administratrix of Charges Rehearing- death, Byars judgment had estate MERCANTILE CO. individual and costs conflict, in which the notice 1923, 5716, party N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. favor appeal. 5716). defend Horton, Judge. preserve appellee cause as to clerk Mrs. plaintiff. and revival partners Company, partnership, J. S. Reeves & a as condition entitled, suit and mere party’s appeal was insufficient. of form of Addie administratrix of his estate. of Denied Nov. and charges, were Parris CO. v. partners against is taxed with the upon, and Parris and 1923 does not death and been reversed and ren to this court. right or is concerned. To correct judgment Byars, her was requires t&wkey;75(I)— issued court al. Byars, deceased, foregoing, penalty only, administrator be substituted and, application PINE indebtedness of de- to obtain administrator Co., reviving to which the Lawrence Coun- 23, 1926.) defend enter administratrix as the evidence to, so far as the notice to refused. granted, HILL MER- partnership, is either that section Byars, Statute and served Reese, defendant, Pine of record suit judgment the costs is over- So. with- judg- Mrs. Hill and cor dif ap re- re is- as <©t»For cases see same all