Legal Opinion
City of Anniston v. Hillman
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided January 25, 1930No. 7 Div. 861PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBouldtn, J.
The appeal is from a judgment for the payment of money rendered in an action of tort against a municipal corporation. ,
A supersedeas bond was executed by the mayor on behalf of the municipality, but without, surety. No other security for costs of appeal was given.
Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal for want of a proper supersedeas bond or other security for costs. Code, § 1900, dealing with the duties and powers of the mayor, says: “He shall execute all deeds and contracts, and bonds required in judicial proceedings for and on behalf of the city or town, and no sureties shall be required on…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hill v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Cornelisen v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
- City of Birmingham v. CarleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Curran v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Mayor of Savannah v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. GreenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- City of Birmingham v. WestonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Dorminey v. City of MontgomerySupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Brown v. City of FairhopeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
- Irvin v. ShelleySupreme Court of Alabama · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.