Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 10, 1932No. 6 Div. 990PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

The proceedings as to the interpleader appear to conform to our statute (section 10386, Code 1923), and the regularity thereof is not here questioned. McDonald v. McDonald, 212 Ala. 137, 102 So. 38, 36 A. L. R. 761. The case proceeded as one between plaintiff (who claims under the certificate of March 28, 1928, No. 7449) and the substituted defendant under certificate No. 7723. Plaintiff proved the death of the insured prior to the institution of the suit, while in good standing in the order, and offered in evidence certificate No. 7449, in which she was named as a beneficiary to the extent…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. McMillan v. AikenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. McDonald v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  3. Meyerson v. New Idea Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  4. Massey v. PentecostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  5. Slaughter v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Mudd v. LanierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  2. Owens v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
  3. Taylor v. Southern Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  4. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. FeltmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  5. McRee v. RussellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940

7 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