Allgood v. Parker

107 So. 326, 21 Ala. App. 273, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 63
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 1926·No. 3 Div. 536.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Sections 375 and 376, Acts 1919, p. 445, are not materially different from, and are practically the same as Code 1907, § 2411, as amended by Act of the Legislature, Sp. Sess. 1909, pp. 165, 166, and section 2412, and considered in the case of Lovelady v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb, 68 So. 48, 191 Ala. 96. The judge of probate, upon petition regularly filed, having issued his certificate in accordance with section 876 of the Act of 1919, p. 445, and' this court being bound by the decision in the Lovelady Case, supra, we must hold that the trial court did not commit error in granting the writ as prayed. See Turner v. Anniston Elec. & Gas Co., 75 So. 465, 200 Ala. 89; Board of Rev. v. Sou. Bell T. & T. Co., 76 So. 858, 200 Ala. 532.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allgood v. Parker, 107 So. 326, 21 Ala. App. 273, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 63 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

107 So. 326 (Allgood v. Parker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Casmus v. Lee
183 So. 185 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Jones v. State
149 So. 855 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1933)
Blan v. Hollywood Realty Co.
118 So. 257 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Allgood v. Hollywood Realty Co.
118 So. 253 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)