Foreman v. City of Anniston
167 So. 2d 169, 277 Ala. 87, 1964 Ala. LEXIS 465
Opinions
The verification of the claim filed with the-city is sufficient. City of Anniston v. Rosser, 275 Ala. 659, 158 So.2d 99.
The court erred in sustaining objection' to introduction of the claim in evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Foreman v. City of Anniston, 167 So. 2d 169, 277 Ala. 87, 1964 Ala. LEXIS 465 (Ala. 1964).
167 So. 2d 169 (Foreman v. City of Anniston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Anniston v. Rosser
158 So. 2d 99 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Brooks v. Everett
124 So. 2d 100 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1960)
Fowler v. Johnson
180 So. 312 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Johnson v. Stocks
92 So. 457 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Petchey v. Allendale Land Co.
112 So. 818 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Ellis v. Drake
83 So. 281 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Pickle's Adm'r v. Ezzell
27 Ala. 623 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1855)
Dennis v. Coker's Adm'r
34 Ala. 611 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)
Globe Iron Roofing & Corrugating Co. v. Thacher
87 Ala. 458 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1888)
Florence Building & Investment Ass'n v. Schall
107 Ala. 531 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Burgess & Co. v. Martin
111 Ala. 656 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Pollard v. Southern Fertilizer Co.
122 Ala. 409 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)
Smothers v. Meridian Fertilizer Factory
137 Ala. 166 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)