Dennis v. Coker's Adm'r

Supreme Court of Alabama

Dennis v. Coker's Adm'r

34 Ala. 611

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 34 Ala. 611 (Dennis v. Coker's Adm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis v. Coker's Adm'r, 34 Ala. 611 (Ala. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

E. W. WALNEE, J.

Under the rule adopted in Pickell v. Ezell, 27 Ala. 623, we must hold, that the affidavit of J. B. Dennis, and the original affidavit of Longmire, do not properly verify the claim of the appellants. — See, also, Lay v. Clark, 31 Ala. 409.

[1.] The subsequent affidavits, made in April, 1858, can have no influence on the case. The act of February 6th, 1858, (Acts ’57-8, p. 37,) does not apply, where the nine months after the estate was'declared insolvent had expired before the statute was enacted.

The decree of the probate court is affirmed.

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

E. W. WALNEE, J.

Under the rule adopted in Pickell v. Ezell, 27 Ala. 623, we must hold, that the affidavit of J. B. Dennis, and the original affidavit of Longmire, do not properly verify the claim of the appellants. — See, also, Lay v. Clark, 31 Ala. 409.

[1.] The subsequent affidavits, made in April, 1858, can have no influence on the case. The act of February 6th, 1858, (Acts ’57-8, p. 37,) does not apply, where the nine months after the estate was'declared insolvent had expired before the statute was enacted.

The decree of the probate court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Ala. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-cokers-admr-ala-1859.

Opinion

E. W. WALNEE, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack