TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cain v. Mather

CAIN versus MATHER

Cain v. Mather, 3 Port. 224 (1836)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1836
Judges
Beeii, Below, Hitchcock, Hopkins
Citations
3 Port. 224
Headnotes
1. Under a demurrer to a declaration filed in fin attachment case a question cannot arise as to the propriety of the claim under which the process issues — the declaration on its face containing a substantial cause of action.
Summary
QUESTION IS THIS CASE. If demurrer to a declaration, reaches a question as to whether attachment lies.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hitchcock

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hitchcock, J.

This was a writ of error from the Circuit Court of Madison County. There' was a demurrer to the declaration by the defendant, which was sustained in the Court below, upon which judgment was rendered for the defendant.

The ground of the decision of the Circuit Court appears to be, that as the defendant is stated in the declaration to have been attached h} his goods and chattels, and, as the declaration'states the plaintiff’s cause of action to be to recover damages for the false warranty of a quantity of jewelry, and thereby sounds in damages only, that the attachment does not lie.

We do not think this question is raised by the pleadings in this case. A general demurrer brings only to the notice of the court, matters of substance to the declaration, and though it appears by the de-< claration, that the defendant was attached by his goods, it may be, for aught that we can know, a judicial attachment, which extends to all kinds of actions. We cannot look behind the declaration, which contains a substantial cause of action.

*225 As to the point upon which the Court below is supposed to have sustained the demurrer, the case' having been argued exparte, there being but two judges competent to set in the case* and as it cannot arise in the farther prosecution of this case* we do not deem it proper to consider it.

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.

Hopkins, J., not sitting in this case, having beeii bf counsel below.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1846–1847: 11876–1877: 11924–1925: 11932–1933: 218462026peak 1932 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Coats56 Ala. 439 (1876)
  2. Jordan v. Hazard10 Ala. 221 (1846)
  3. Melvin v. Scowley104 So. 817 (Ala. 1925)
  4. Bates v. Bank of Moulton148 So. 150 (Ala. 1933)
  5. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Strickland148 So. 799 (Ala. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Strickland148 So. 799 (Ala. 1933)
  2. Bates v. Bank of Moulton148 So. 150 (Ala. 1933)
  3. Melvin v. Scowley104 So. 817 (Ala. 1925)
  4. Brown v. Coats56 Ala. 439 (1876)
  5. Jordan v. Hazard10 Ala. 221 (1846)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list