Legal Opinion

City of Birmingham v. Simmons

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 29, 1931No. 6 Div. 592PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

It is insisted that the penalty of 10 per cent, as provided by section 6153 should not be taxed against the defendant upon the affirmance of the moneyed judgment, because there was no legal supersedeas of the judgment as the defendant while giving a supersedeas bond had no surety thereon. There might be merit in this contention, but for section 1900 of the Code of 1923, which authorizes the mayor to execute the bond and that no sureties be required. Anniston v. Hillman, 220 Ala. 505, 126 So. 169. Nor is a judgment for the 10 per cent., dependent upon the fact that there must be more than one…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. City of Anniston v. HillmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State Hwy. Dept. v. Milton Const. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  2. City of Birmingham v. BowenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
  3. Jefferson County v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  4. State v. AllgoodWashington Supreme Court · 1957
  5. City of Troy v. McLendonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966

2 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