Markland v. Albes

81 Ala. 433
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 81 Ala. 433 (Markland v. Albes) 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
Markland v. Albes, 81 Ala. 433 (Ala. 1886).

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

— 1. The petition of the appellant, praying for the revocation of the letters of administration granted to the appellee, and for his own appointment as ad[435]*435ministrator of Mrs. Moore’s estate, was properly dismissed. Admitting that the letters first granted were premature, and that the appellant had-a prior right to administration, he nevertheless waived such right by allowing forty days from the death of the intestate to expire without asserting it by application to the Probate Court for the appointment. After the lapse of this statutory period no one has a right to claim any priority or preferences to such appointment, those entitled being declared by the statute expressly to have “relinquished their right to the administration,” by having failed to apply for it. — Code, 1876, §§ 2350-2351; Cunningham v. Thomas, 59 Ala. 158; Davis v. Swearinger, 56 Ala. 31; Sowell v. Sowell, 41 Ala. 359; Forrester v. Forester, 37 Ala. 398.

The demurrer was properly sustained, and there is no error in the judgment of the court dismissing the petition.

2. The motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the record must be sustained, it not appearing that it was signed by the judge in term time, or that there was consent or agreement of counsel authorizing it to be signed after adjournment. — Code, 1876, § 3113; Wood v. Brown, 8 Ala. 563; Union India Rubber Co. v. Mitchell, 37 Ala. 314; Pearce v. Clements, 73 Ala. 256.

3. Without the aid of a bill of exceptions, the rulings of the court, refusing to allow the petition to be amended, can not be reviewed in this court, as has been often and uniformly held. — Bright v. State, 76 Ala. 96, and cases cited.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Williams v. Tolbert
519 So. 2d 500 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Starlin v. Love
185 So. 380 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Nelson v. State
72 So. 510 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Hill
76 S.E. 1001 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Carpigiani v. Hall
55 So. 248 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Baker v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
51 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Sandlin v. Kennedy Stave & C. Co.
51 So. 622 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Crowe v. Corporation of Charles Town
57 S.E. 330 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1907)
Morris v. Brannen & Sons
103 Ala. 602 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 Ala. 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markland-v-albes-ala-1886.