contest claim in Alabama

2026"This Court in Bleidt reversed the fee award on the basis of the litigation represented by Clark v. Clark, 280 Ala. 644 , 197 So. 2d 447 (1967) ('Clark I') (reversing a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the contestant and rendering a judgment in favor of the proponent on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the contest); and Clark v. Clark, 287 Ala. 42 , 247 So. 2d 361 (1971) ('Clark II') (holding that attorneys who represented the 'executor in the will contest' in Clark I were entitled to a fee to be paid by the contestant).

2012This Court in Bleidt reversed the fee award on the basis of the litigation represented by Clark v. Clark, 280 Ala. 644 , 197 So.2d 447 (1967) (“Clark I”) (reversing a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the contestant and rendering a judgment in favor of the proponent on the ground that the evidence wqs insufficient to support the contest); and Clark v. Clark, 287 Ala. 42 , 247 So.2d 361 (1971) (“Clark II”) (holding that attorneys who represented the “executor in the will contest” in Clark I were entitled to a fee to be paid by the contestant).

2026"This Court in Bleidt reversed the fee award on the basis of the litigation represented by Clark v. Clark, 280 Ala. 644 , 197 So. 2d 447 (1967) ('Clark I') (reversing a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the contestant and rendering a judgment in favor of the proponent on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the contest); and Clark v. Clark, 287 Ala. 42 , 247 So. 2d 361 (1971) ('Clark II') (holding that attorneys who represented the 'executor in the will contest' in Clark I were entitled to a fee to be paid by the contestant).

2012This Court in Bleidt reversed the fee award on the basis of the litigation represented by Clark v. Clark, 280 Ala. 644 , 197 So.2d 447 (1967) (“Clark I”) (reversing a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the contestant and rendering a judgment in favor of the proponent on the ground that the evidence wqs insufficient to support the contest); and Clark v. Clark, 287 Ala. 42 , 247 So.2d 361 (1971) (“Clark II”) (holding that attorneys who represented the “executor in the will contest” in Clark I were entitled to a fee to be paid by the contestant).

1986Turner v. Cooper, supra. [4] *697 That is not to say that the inquiry of the committee in this contest must necessarily be ended.

1986Turner v. Cooper, supra. 4 That is not to say that the inquiry of the committee in this contest must necessarily be ended.

1978Merchants National Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam, 250 Ala. 316 , 34 So.2d 122 .

1978Merchants National Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam, 250 Ala. 316 , 34 So.2d 122 .

1990So too, in this case, the parties agree that the contest rules must be interpreted in light of the apparent purpose of the rules — to encourage the public’s participation in the contest by lessening any suspicion of fraud or collusion in the conduct of the drawing, thereby bolstering the public’s confidence in the contest.’ Id. [ 99 Ill.App.3d at 936 , 55 Ill.Dec. at 184-85 , 425 N.E.2d] at 1357-58.” “The court in Cashway Building Materials, Inc. v. McCurdy, 553 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Civ.App.1977), followed the same line of reasoning in interpreting the term ‘vendor’ in the rules of a store contest

1990So too, in this case, the parties agree that the contest rules must be interpreted in light of the apparent purpose of the rules — to encourage the public’s participation in the contest by lessening any suspicion of fraud or collusion in the conduct of the drawing, thereby bolstering the public’s confidence in the contest.’ Id. [ 99 Ill.App.3d at 936 , 55 Ill.Dec. at 184-85 , 425 N.E.2d] at 1357-58.” “The court in Cashway Building Materials, Inc. v. McCurdy, 553 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Civ.App.1977), followed the same line of reasoning in interpreting the term ‘vendor’ in the rules of a store contest

1990So too, in this case, the parties agree that the contest rules must be interpreted in light of the apparent purpose of the rules — to encourage the public’s participation in the contest by lessening any suspicion of fraud or collusion in the conduct of the drawing, thereby bolstering the public’s confidence in the contest.’ Id. [ 99 Ill.App.3d at 936 , 55 Ill.Dec. at 184-85 , 425 N.E.2d] at 1357-58.” “The court in Cashway Building Materials, Inc. v. McCurdy, 553 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Civ.App.1977), followed the same line of reasoning in interpreting the term ‘vendor’ in the rules of a store contest

1970We think the answer to this question is found in Weis v. Levy, 69 Ala. 209 , wherein there was a contest of a claim of exemption filed by the judgment debtor with the sheriff of Monroe County to certain personal property levied on under an attachment issued out of the Circuit Court of Mobile County.

1944Tillery v. Commercial National Bank of Anniston, 241 Ala. 653 , 4 So.2d 125 .

1944Tillery v. Commercial National Bank of Anniston, 241 Ala. 653 , 4 So.2d 125 .

1918Further the appellant quotes from Mewburn v. Bass, 82 Ala. 622 , 2 South. 520 , this language, which in that case was quoted from Comer v. Sheehan, 74 Ala. 452 : “We are of opinion that one who purchases as mortgagee at Ms own sale comes witMn the benefit designed to bo secured by this statute (Code 1876, § 2878, statutory redemption), although no deed, or other written memorandum of the sale, is made at the time, so as to rescue the transaction from the influence of the statute of frauds.” From the report of Comer v. Sheehan it appears that the court was speaking of section 2878 of the Code o

1918It was not property that could have been mortgaged.” Pursuing his argument, appellant cites Harris v. Miller, 71 Ala. 26 (a case arising out of a contest of a claim of exemption to a debt sought to be subjected by garnishment, and in which, for aught appearing, a deed was executed) to the effect that, where the mortgagee becomes the purchaser at his own sale, bidding the amount of his debt and expenses, the mortgage debt is by operation of law satisfied and extinguished — a proposition in no wise questioned, if the mortgagee gets what he bids for, i. e., all the original right and title of the

1918Further the appellant quotes from Mewburn v. Bass, 82 Ala. 622 , 2 South. 520 , this language, which in that case was quoted from Comer v. Sheehan, 74 Ala. 452 : “We are of opinion that one who purchases as mortgagee at Ms own sale comes witMn the benefit designed to bo secured by this statute (Code 1876, § 2878, statutory redemption), although no deed, or other written memorandum of the sale, is made at the time, so as to rescue the transaction from the influence of the statute of frauds.” From the report of Comer v. Sheehan it appears that the court was speaking of section 2878 of the Code o

1918Further the appellant quotes from Mewburn v. Bass, 82 Ala. 622 , 2 South. 520 , this language, which in that case was quoted from Comer v. Sheehan, 74 Ala. 452 : “We are of opinion that one who purchases as mortgagee at Ms own sale comes witMn the benefit designed to bo secured by this statute (Code 1876, § 2878, statutory redemption), although no deed, or other written memorandum of the sale, is made at the time, so as to rescue the transaction from the influence of the statute of frauds.” From the report of Comer v. Sheehan it appears that the court was speaking of section 2878 of the Code o

1918Further the appellant quotes from Mewburn v. Bass, 82 Ala. 622 , 2 South. 520 , this language, which in that case was quoted from Comer v. Sheehan, 74 Ala. 452 : “We are of opinion that one who purchases as mortgagee at Ms own sale comes witMn the benefit designed to bo secured by this statute (Code 1876, § 2878, statutory redemption), although no deed, or other written memorandum of the sale, is made at the time, so as to rescue the transaction from the influence of the statute of frauds.” From the report of Comer v. Sheehan it appears that the court was speaking of section 2878 of the Code o

1909The purpose of allowing the plaintiff to demand an inventory of the defendant, upon the contest of a claim of exemptions, is to prevent the defendant, while claiming the property levied upon as exempt, from secreting other' personal property, money, or choses in action subject to his debts, and which may be reached by appropriate legal process. — Decatur Co. v. Deford, 93 Ala. 347, 9 South. 454 .

1894The owner may file his declaration of exemption in the probate court, and this protects him against a levy upon it, unless, on a contest of his claim as provided, it is held to be invalid, or if he has not filed his-declaration, and the homestead is levied on under legal pocess, he may, at any time, after the levy and prior to the sale, file with the officer making the levy, a claim in writing verified by affidavit in the maner directed by statute, which shall protect his property from sale, unless contested as provided, and his claim has been found to be of no validity. — Code, §§ 2515, 2521;

1892This mode is exclusive, and the letter by which plaintiff’s attorneys sought to accomplish that purpose, being wholly ineffectual, there was no error in the refusal of the court.to permit its introduction in evidence. —Block v. Bragg, supra. Without considering specifically the other exceptions, which arise upon the instructions given or refused by the court, it is only necessary to add, the proof fails to show that the defendant in execution had any property in Jeffer-* son county from which appellee Smith, as sheriff of such county, could by due diligence have made the money due on appellant

1892It is obvious that tbe judicial proceedings in tbe matter of the contest of the claim of exemptions were res inter alios acta as to the complaint. —Beckert v. Whitlock, 83 Ala. 123 .