The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-08-31

mon law remedy, the party may pursue either the common law remedy or the sssrs {. ae o sassSon ss OnSn in tSs nS s cited, but we only deem 1t necessary to assd 'hs ef foewnf New cyc sSp
 Ala. sso-Sss; ssdswick on Stat. and
 S, is 1t % in harmony with the foregoing rule of construction to give the word may" as used in this statute; ,ne by abrogate the common law right. when the common law right would re. main unimpaiTed, by gtiying to rt the is said in the opinion rendered by the court in this cases ]that the "authoritiss cited" did not attempt to construe tne aeals as with 4 the the rsht of the
 they C could arrest are the he principal Very distingpished court which rendered them some members of whicn Wi nontemporarv with the adoption of the for more than a quarter qua Of a century. meyer discovered that by the statute bail was no longer Tn custody of his his jailors"--that they could mo long CT proceed without process" to sur render him. but continued without or aw and Tested SeSase aeciso in each case that the surety was not liable because Of the common law court was not dealing with a dead past, but a present living. Issue and principle. It is 2 rash criticism and and the dIstinsuished court. to attempt to cover their. ignorance under the mantle of charity. by saying that they srrest" @ "oi in onaa making u such deciaratIons. @ universal eonstruction lon by ' trial courts far as we can earn e1s for tSe st tune questioned. If this be true. that of itself should be very persuasive, ute provides a pfoseetioh % a for the hns shsr- h tffs or others. who are authorized to arrest under the certificatess when au- surety thereon, and does thereby sup ply an additional statutory authority and sS,edv. and 1t seems that the pro- authorizes the surety, by endorsement tu have the principal arrest by anoth- CT. Can any decision be found where our court has held that such rights The court. in the opinion rendered in this case, comedies that under the hail Is about to abscond and leave his sureties to pay the bond, he may do so.a ecfore the sn-eties. could secure q cer- the ss court Tti for T this purpose. "a condition no doubt suggested by the facts of the rase at barl and work a great inJus- court suggests the oversight in the should be addressed to the law makers. shot should a exist for sGm more re than fifty years since 18b2--and never occur to our Su- preme Court. or the many succeeding
 We respectfully submit that the wrong. will not arise from any defect or omission in Iegislation, if the opin- and so familiar to the officers of the State. and under which sureties have so long become bound, even for half ed, by the present construction of the statute, wholly at variance with the rules of construction of statutes in de. of principles uniformly declared by nnr Supreme Court in references to bail and sureties. I submit the the crit criticism ina the remedy to the Legislature,
 If reference Is made to the Code of 1852: 1t. will be seen that there were originally two sections--the first dec iaratory of the connsnon 1aw--and the next providing a remedy which had not existed at common law. The law common law in fuli force. and proyid- cd for 1t in a separate section. Code now under consideration contains no argument to show that. the wording of the Statute or the. object in view presented a case which Justified the substitution by the court of the word must" for the word ''may" as used in the Statute. nor any argument or auth oritv to show that the rule universally applied that remedy at com mon mon iaw ritat mase snfaeFee not ssie- re- garded as abridged or qualified by the nrovision of statutory remedy. but the statutory remedy will be constru- cd as cumulative only, unless there are express words denying the common. law remedy or the two. are at such vart- ance. that both cannot stand. The above authorities are conclusive as far as argument and principle are con- cerned. The only answer contained in the opinion to these proposittonssg Is n do~matic substitution of must" for "mav" and a like fulmination that it "'tei is David vs Terry. 11s Ala. 24f. Aecision treated of wholly different suhfActs involving. different rules of and the auth oritv is not at aI1 annIfcahIe. Moreover the latter statute used the word arn1Ist' in limit tne the mower of the "Chancelfor' in the anpoirtrnent of receivers The aii- thority cited has no hearing on the
 [ refer the facts nf the case also to the Leeislature. with the suggestion If the court in the onipion that fesisIa- ton is needed if the onipion and decis- 'nn Is to stand as the rule in this, state. . -f...