3 Stew. 226 | Ala. | 1830
On consideration, we are satisfied that the act of 1814, is for the government of Justices issuing attachments returnable and triable before themselves, and that the proceedings in the present attachment were had under the act of 1807; the affidavit
any time before the jury had retired with the case, it was competent for the Court in its discretion to permit the plaintiff to withdraw his replication, and to demur to the plea. There was therefore no error committed by the Court below in allowing this to be done.
But the main question to be settled is, was the pica good in abatement, and should not judgment on demurrer have been for the defendant? The affirmative of this proposition is certainly true. In the case of Mantz v. Hendly,
A majority of us are therefore of opinion, that on this ground alone, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Note. This cause was argued at a previous term, and re-argued at the present term.
2. Henn. & Munf. 312.
Page 365.