Roundtree v. Snodgrass
This text of 36 Ala. 185 (Roundtree v. Snodgrass) 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.
Opinion
A. J. WALKER, C. J.
Section 1813 of the Code relieves an administrator from the presumption of a liability for interest, upon his making a prescribed affidavit, but authorizes a contestation of the affidavit. If it be conceded that the prescribed affidavit, which is copied into the transcript, is a part of the record, the decree of the probate court, in reference to the charge of interest, must nevertheless, in a revising tribunal, be deemed correct. The record gives us no information, by bill of exceptions or otherwise, as to the evidence before the probate court; and we must intend that there was evidence successfully controverting the affidavit, and that the court decided correctly, rather than that the affidavit was uncontested, and that the court erred. — Doe ex dem. School Com’rs v. Godwin, 30 Ala. 242; Fleming v. Ussery, ib. 282; Lovett v. Chisolm, ib. 88; Shepherd’s Digest, 572.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded to that court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
36 Ala. 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roundtree-v-snodgrass-ala-1860.