Court Opinion

ID: 7986858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:26:37.221304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:13.484860
License: Public Domain

Cooper, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The injunction should have been dissolved. The recital in the judgment nisi that Ricketts and his sureties had bound themselves by a recognizance instead of a bail bond was, at most, an irregularity, assignable for error on appeal, and not affecting the validity of the judgment in a collateral attack.
The seire facias was not void because of the fact that the parties were cited to appear at the “ next term of the circuit court to be held in Grenada, in the county of Grenada, on the-Monday of January, 1888.” The law fixed the date for the beginning of said term, and the appellees were sufficiently notified when to appear. Wharton v. Conger, 9 S. & M. 510; Lore v. McRae, 12 Ala. 444; Yonge v. Broxson, 23 Ib. 684.
But, if the judgment was void, the appellees have a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and no exceptional circumstances are shown warranting the interposition of a court of chancery. Jones v. Coker, 53 Miss. 195; Beatty v. Smith, 2 S. & M. 567; Boone v. Poindexter, 12 Ib. 640.

The decree is reversed and injunction dissolved.