Legal Opinion

Nichols v. Dill

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 12, 1931No. 6 Div. 702PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ANDERSON, O. J.

This is an original bill to impeach a decree for fraud and not a bill of review as dealt with in section 6607 of the Code of 1923, and leave to file same under section 6608 was not necessary. McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 630, 21 So. 534; Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147, 95 So. 542.

While the limitation as to time fixed by section 6608 has been extended by way of analogy to bills to impeach a decree, section 8966 modifies this rule to the extent of allowing one year after the discovery of the fraud. Heflin v. Ashford, 85 Ala. 125, 3 So. 760.

As we understand, the bill charges…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. McDonald v. PearsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
  3. Keenum v. DodsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  4. O'Neal v. CooperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. Hinson v. NaugherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Wilkerson v. WilkersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Ex Parte FosheeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  3. Cunningham v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  4. Duncan v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  5. Hooke v. HookeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API