Moore v. Strickland

21 So. 2d 665, 246 Ala. 624, 1945 Ala. LEXIS 328
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 11, 1945·No. 6 Div. 266.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

*625 PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the Act of March 26, 1936, General & Local Acts, Extra Session, 1936, p. 29, amending the Act of 1931, amendatory of Section 5742 of the Code of 1923, Code 1940, Tit. 61, § 81, by the substitution of the word “satisfactory” for the word “fit”, worked no change in the meaning of the statute, as previously construed, and, therefore, the probate court was without discretion to consider any olher disqualifications than those set down in § 69, Tit. 61, Code 1940.

Therefore, the court erred in denying the appellant’s application for the removal of appellee, and for his own appointment.

Original opinion withdrawn, rehearing granted, decree of the probate court reversed, and the cause remanded.

GARDNER, C.J., and THOMAS, FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, STAKELY and SIMPSON, JJ., concur. BROWN, J., dissents.

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

Moore v. Strickland, 21 So. 2d 665, 246 Ala. 624, 1945 Ala. LEXIS 328 (Ala. 1945).

21 So. 2d 665 (Moore v. Strickland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Rice
90 So. 2d 262 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Burnett v. Garrison
75 So. 2d 144 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1954)