Legal Opinion

Daggett v. Boomer

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 7, 1924No. 6 Div. 52PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

The trial court had a discretionary power to prescribe the time within which the nonresident contestant should give security for cost, and ah equally discretionary power to extend the time. Ex parte Jones, 83 Ala. 587, 3 South. 811. The contestant did not give the security within the time fixed, but did do so on the next day, and which was, -in effect, accepted by the trial court by going on with the case. The case was still in fieri, as the order requiring the security for cost or that the case stand dismissed upon a default, was not a judgment of dismissal, and, in order for the case to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wear v. WearSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  2. Miller v. WhittingtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
  3. Watson v. AdamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  4. Cunninghame v. HerringSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
  5. Lide v. ParkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Norris v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  2. Patterson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  3. Clayton v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929
  4. Batson v. BatsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  5. Mindler v. CrockerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944

12 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