Gay v. Cummings
| Decision Date | 20 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 712. |
| Parties | GAY v. CUMMINGS. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1928.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; Arthur B. Chilton Special Judge.
Action on common counts by A. J. Gay against S. J. Cummings. From an order or judgment quashing the summons and complaint plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Gay v. Cummings, 122 So 313.
Hooton & Moon, of Roanoke, for appellant.
Van & Parker, of Roanoke, for appellee.
The appellant sued appellee in the circuit court of Randolph county, Ala., on the common counts for account, account stated, services rendered, and work and labor done. All of the actions are in form ex contractu.
To the complaint, as a whole, the appellee interposed a plea in abatement denying the jurisdiction of the circuit court of Randolph county, and alleging that the defendant is a resident of Etowah county, Ala., and that defendant had a permanent residence in Etowah county at the time the alleged cause of action arose, and at the time the suit in this cause was filed, and concluded with a prayer that the summons and complaint in this cause be quashed.
No objection to the sufficiency of this plea was taken by demurrer or otherwise, but appellant joined issue thereon.
Upon a hearing on said plea, the evidence introduced established without dispute the truth of the averments thereof, and the trial court rendered judgment sustaining the plea, and quashing the summons and complaint. From such judgment, this appeal is taken.
Section 10467 of the 1923 Code of Alabama provides that: "All actions on contracts, except as may be otherwise provided, must be brought in the county in which the defendant or one of the defendants resides, if such defendant has within the State a permanent residence. ***" Appellee's plea was drawn under this provision of the statute.
As stated above, this plea was addressed to the complaint as a whole, and no question was raised as to its sufficiency in setting forth matter in abatement to the counts for work and labor done by reason of its failure to exclude the hypothesis that the work may have been done in Randolph county, and hence suable for in the county under the provisions of section 10468 of the 1923 Code of Alabama, which latter statute permits actions for work and labor done to be brought in the county in which the work was...
To continue reading
Request your trial