Legal Opinion

Kilgore v. Swindle

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 11, 1929No. 6 Div. 325PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBound In, J.

The proceeding in the ■court below was by mandamus, brought by the sheriff of Walker county against the county treasurer to require payment of certain fees from the fine and forfeiture fund of the county.

It is admitted the claims were duly registered, and there are available funds for their payment. The purpose of the suit is to ascertain whether they are lawful claims against such fund.

Mandamus is the proper remedy. Farson v. Bird, 197 Ala. 384, 72 So. 550.

Two classes of fees are involved:

First. A “turnkey fee” of $2, claimed for guarding a prisoner lawfully committed to jail on a charge of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Pollard v. BrewerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
  2. Board of Revenue & Road Commissioners v. State ex rel. DragoSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
  3. Macon County v. AbercrombieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
  4. Bilbro v. DrakefordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  5. Farson, Son & Co. v. BirdSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Governor Siegelman v. Alabama Assn., S. Bds.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  2. Champion v. McLeanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
  3. Western Paving v. Bd. of Com'rs of LincolnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
  4. Cabler v. Mobile CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API