[Return to Alabama Supreme Court Cases]
Genealogical Gleanings From
Reports of Cases Determined in the
Supreme Court of Alabama, 1820-1826
Garrow brought assumpsit against Barlow, in the Superior Court of Mobile county. Declaration entitled, “Mississippi Territory of the United States, Mobile County, ss,” sets out an indebitatus assumpsit, by defendant to plaintiff, at the City of New Orleans, omitting “viz: at the County of Mobile.” Issues on the plea of non-assumpsit, and statute of limitations. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Barlow here assigns for error, “that the venue laid in the declaration was not within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Mobile county.”
Crawford and Hitchcock, for plaintiff in error.
Elliott, for defendant in error.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.In local actions, the venue is matter of substance, and must be properly laid to give jurisdiction. In transitory actions, it is but matter of form; and the jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the place where the cause of action arose, or the contract was made. In this case, it would have been but a formal action to say “at New Orleans, to-wit, in the county of Mobile;” and, in my opinion, the defect is clearly cured by the verdict. My brethren concur in affirming the judgment, but on the ground that the defect is cured by reference to the margin of the declaration.
BY ALL THE COURTLet the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
Source: Henry Minor, Reporter, Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama From May, 1820, to July, 1826 (Atlanta: 1891), pp. 1-2.
GenealogyMagazine.com - Copyright © 2000-2013 Datatrace Systems