1 Ala. 195 (Ala. 1840), Norwood v. Riddle

Citation1 Ala. 195
Opinion JudgeCOLLIER, C.J.
Party NameNORWOOD & CHAMBERS v. RIDDLE.
AttorneyHOPKINS, for the defendant. MCCLUNG, contra.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Page 195

1 Ala. 195 (Ala. 1840)

NORWOOD & CHAMBERS

v.

RIDDLE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January Term, 1840

The service of process is sufficiently shown by proving that the signature of the defendant to an acknowledgment thereupon indorsed is in his own handwriting.

THIS case comes here by writ of error from the county court of Jackson. The defendant in error, caused to be issued a petition and summons against the plaintiffs in error, returnable to the county court of Jackson; which was executed on Chambers by the Coroner of that county, and on which was the following endorsement: "I acknowledge the service of the within writ.

Feb. the 6th, 1838. HENRY NORWOOD."

The entry of judgment commences as follows: "Came the plaintiff by his attorney, and upon the affidavit of Moses Jones, to the hand writing of the signature of Henry Norwood, to the acknowledgment of the service of the writ upon him, and on motion of the plaintiff by his attorney, and the defendant being solemnly called, &c., came not, but made default."

It is assigned for error that it does not sufficiently appear from the record, that Norwood was served with process.

HOPKINS, for the defendant.

MCCLUNG, contra.

COLLIER, C.J.

The endorsement on the process, purporting to be an acknowledgment of service on Norwood, is certainly not sufficient proof of that fact: but when it is shown that the acknowledgment is subscribed with the name of Norwood, in his own hand-writing, the evidence is satisfactory to show, that the act was his own.

It is, however, objected, that the court cannot know that the affidavit of Moses Jones, was regularly made; that it may have been taken out of court before a justice of the peace, or other officer. This objection may be well founded in point of fact, but the inference is unauthorised, by any any thing in the record. According to a well established rule, every intendment must be here made in favor of the judgment of a subordinate court, which can consistently be made. Now, as we must suppose, that the county court would not have admitted an affidavit, which was not legal proof of the fact, it will be intended that the affidavit was made in open court, and that the witness was there examined.

This view shows that there is no error in the proceedings in the county court; and its judgment is consequently affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • 31 Ill. 162 (Ill. 1863), Banks v. Banks
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court of Illinois
    • Invalid date
    ...words, by his acknowledgment that he has had notice and his implied admission of the legal effect of actual service Norwood v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195; Lewis v. State Bank, 4 Pike (Ark.) 443; Metz v. Bremond, 13 Texas 394; Maher v. Bull, 26 Ill. 348. If it was necessary to prove the signature of......
  • 10 Ark. 572 (Ark. 1850), Ex parte Gibson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • Invalid date
    ...notice of the suit, and consented that he would appear to the action. This practice has been tolerated in Alabama, ( Norwood v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195), and we perceive no sensible reason why it may not be held to affect the party defendant with notice, and give the court jurisdiction. But it w......
  • 44 Ala. 287 (Ala. 1870), Talladega Ins. Co. v. Woodward
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • Invalid date
    ...intendment must be made in favor of the judgment of a subordinate court which can consistently be made.-- Norwood & Chambers v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195; Earbee et al. v. Ware, 9 Port. 291. The like presumption must be indulged in reference to the entry of the case on the appearance docket. S......
6 cases
  • 15 So. 947 (Ala. 1894), Independent Pub. Co. v. American Press Ass'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 14, 1894
    ...or "agent," etc., as the case may be, to authorize a judgment by default. Earbee v. Ware, 9 Port. (Ala.) 291; Norwood v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195; Lyon v. Lorant, 3 Ala. 151; Railroad Co. v. Cole, 6 Ala. 655; Railroad Co. v. Whorley, 74 Ala. 264; Insurance Co. v. Fowler, 76 Ala. 372; Ra......
  • 25 So. 564 (Ala. 1899), Southern Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 12, 1899
    ...or agent of the defendant as by law was authorized to receive service of process for and in behalf of the defendant. Norwood v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195; Association v. Agee, 99 Ala. 591, 13 So. 280; Insurance Co. v. Fowler, 76 Ala. 372; Independent Pub. Co. v. American Press Ass'n, 102 Ala. 475,......
  • 31 Ill. 162 (Ill. 1863), Banks v. Banks
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • Invalid date
    ...words, by his acknowledgment that he has had notice and his implied admission of the legal effect of actual service Norwood v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195; Lewis v. State Bank, 4 Pike (Ark.) 443; Metz v. Bremond, 13 Texas 394; Maher v. Bull, 26 Ill. If it was necessary to prove the signature of the ......
  • 42 So. 599 (Ala. 1906), Durr v. Hanover Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 29, 1906
    ...an ex parte affidavit of Charles P. Jones before a notary public, made out of court and even before the bill was filed. Norwood v. Riddle, 1 Ala. 195; Talladega Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 289; Code 1896, § 1792. But we need not pursue this discussion, nor the discussion of other question......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT