Allgood v. Parker

Alabama Court of Appeals

Allgood v. Parker

107 So. 326, 21 Ala. App. 273, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 63

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 1926

Docket3 Div. 536.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 So. 326 (Allgood v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 326, 21 Ala. App. 273, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allgood-v-parker-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack