Case ID: minor_1/html/0005-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones against Acre, administrator of Campbell.
    
      May, 1820.
    1st, Action intituted by intestate declaration in name of administrator.
    Verdict on general issue. Omission of suggestion of death cured.
    ON the 11th daybf May, 1811, a writ issued in the name of .James H. Campbell plaintiff, vs. Wm. B. Jones defendant, returnable to the Superior Court of Mobile county. At Oc-toberterm, 1811, Acre, as administrator of Campbell, declared in assumpsit against Jones, making profert of his letters of administration. General issue. The record then sets out as •of October term 1816. “The jury find for the SI 53 53. Thomas Pom el, foreman.” “ Ordered that a new trial bé granted in this case.” The record then proceeds, without any statement of continuance, or of the term or date, to set out the names of another jury, their verdict for $153 53, a release of $53 53, and the following entry: “ Therefore it is ordered hy the Court that the plaintiff do recover, and that the defendant in mercy f &c.
    2d, New trial awarded. Omission of names of jurors on first trial not to be noticed.
    3d, Judgment uncertain as to its amount and date, "must be reversed.
    
      Jones sued out a writ of Error to the General Court of the Alabama Territory, and assigned errors at the July Term 1818, which appear in the opinion of the Court here.-
   By the Court.

As to the first assignment that there was no order of the Court for the admission of the administrator as a party, the plaintiff in error, by his plea to the declaration, waived the irregularity, and admitted that the administrator was a party. As to the second, that the number and names of the jury on the first trial did not appear, the first verdict was set aside, and we áre therefore not to enquire whether it was rendered by a legal jury. The third assignment, that the record does not shew at what term or for what amount judgment was rendered, we believe to be well taken, although the verdict is for a certain sum, it does not appear when it was r endered. We are not informed by the record what judgment the Court below should have rendered, or from what time interest should be calculated.

ed. Let the judgment be reversed, and the Cause be remand-