Whitworth v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Whitworth v. Anderson

54 Ala. 33

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

BBICKELL, C. J.

The chancellor dismissed appellants’ bill, on motion, because they had not complied with section 93 of the revenue law of 1868, by depositing double the amount of the sum for which the lands, the subject of suit, had been sold for the payment of taxes, &c. The court was [34]*34in error in sustaining the motion. The section of the revenue law of 1868, referred to, has been, by this court, declared unconstitutional.—Stoudenmire v. Brown, 48 Ala. 699.

The decree of the chancellor must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

BBICKELL, C. J.

The chancellor dismissed appellants’ bill, on motion, because they had not complied with section 93 of the revenue law of 1868, by depositing double the amount of the sum for which the lands, the subject of suit, had been sold for the payment of taxes, &c. The court was [34]*34in error in sustaining the motion. The section of the revenue law of 1868, referred to, has been, by this court, declared unconstitutional.—Stoudenmire v. Brown, 48 Ala. 699.

The decree of the chancellor must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Whitworth v. Anderson, 54 Ala. 33 (Ala. 1875).

Pincite

54 Ala. 33 (Whitworth v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related