8 Port. 469 | Ala. | 1839
— The judgment entry, unexplained, would induce the belief, that the defendant in the court below withdrew his plea, and assented to the rendition of a judgment for .the amount of the note; but the bill of exceptions satisfactorily shows, that the-plea in abatement was not withdrawn, or the defence abandoned. The defendant might have insisted on his right to a judgment of non -pros, for want of a replication to his plea. The omission so to do, did not place him in a de fenceless condition, or authorise the court to render any judgment against him; and the County court erred in so doing.
If we were even to presume that the usual replication to a plea of this description was filed, and that an issue of mil fiel record had been presented to the court for its
The evidence offered was proper and pertinent to support the plea on an issue of mil tiel record, and ought not to have been rejected, if such was, in point of fact, the state of the record in the court below.
In either aspect of the case, there was error in the action of the County court; and its judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.