Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tanner v. Whitehurst

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 11, 1936No. 1 Div. 906Published

1DissentGardner, Justice

On Motion.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is not well taken. Security for cost was duly given and approved, with the recital that it was on behalf of Eula Tanner and her three minor children therein named. Under the statute (section 6143, Code), the adult defendant Eula Tanner could appeal by giving the required security and the minors made parties as therein provided. But no necessity exists in the instant case for this procedure for the reason that the guardian ad litem here appears, joins in the appeal, and assigns error. This voluntary appearance suffices for all purposes. Beatty v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sandlin v. AndersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  2. Beatty v. McMillanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  3. Davis v. Elba Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  4. Wilson v. GlennSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  5. Mancill v. ThomasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927

4 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