2 Port. 171 | Ala. | 1835
This case comes before the Courff.ttfpon an exception to the opinion of the Judge of the .'Circuit Court of Madison county, upon the construction of the sta
By our statute of non claim,
The claim of the present plaintiff, was for money he had been compelled to pay for Buford, whose security the present defendant’s testator was. It did not accrue., within the meaning of the statute, until he had paid it. It is true, he held Cunningham’s bond, but it created only a contingent liability which might never become absolute. Neil was sued — Buford was defending — the default of Buford might never be established, and when established, he might pay it. Neil was not at liberty to make a voluntary payment, or at least he was not bound to, in order to
The decision of this Court, in the case of Bigger, adm'rx. vs. Hutchings & Smith, adm'rs,
In this case, the bond was shewn to tHe executors, and within eighteen months; but at that time there had no claim accrued, and as the act was not required, it is not necessary to decide, ther~fQre whether it would have been a good presentation to bar the claim if it had then. accrued.
The case cited from 4 Day's Rep. 476, is in point.
The judgment must be reversed, and the cause be remanded.
Aik. Dig.153 § 6.
2 Stew't, 445
2 Stew't 448.