allowance claim in Alabama

1915When ‘a claim is allowed which is not legally and properly chargeable against the county, the commissioners’ court exceeds its authority, the allowance of the claim is void, and the county is not estopped from disputing its liability.’ — Commissioners’ Court v. Moore, 53 Ala. 25 .

1913When “a claim is allowed which is not legally and properly chargeable against the county, the commissioners’ court exceeds its authority, the allowance of the claim is void, and the county is not estop ped from disputing its liability.” —Commissioners’ Court v. Moore, 53 Ala. 25 .

1878The allowance of the claim, in the absence of an objection within the prescribed time, is a right of the creditor secured by the statute. — Har dy v. Meachem, 33 Ala. 457 ; McNeil v. Mason, 20 Ala. 772 .

1878The allowance of a claim duly filed against an insolvent estate, is a right the statute secures to the creditor, unless objections directed to its merits, are filed within twelve months after the declaration of insolvency. — McNeil v. Mason, 20 Ala. 772 ]; Hardy v. Meachem, 33 Ala. 457 ; Thames v. Herbert, ante, p. 340.

1878The allowance of the claim, in the absence of an objection within the prescribed time, is a right of the creditor secured by the statute. — Har dy v. Meachem, 33 Ala. 457 ; McNeil v. Mason, 20 Ala. 772 .

1878The allowance of a claim duly filed against an insolvent estate, is a right the statute secures to the creditor, unless objections directed to its merits, are filed within twelve months after the declaration of insolvency. — McNeil v. Mason, 20 Ala. 772 ]; Hardy v. Meachem, 33 Ala. 457 ; Thames v. Herbert, ante, p. 340.

1975This section shall not apply to bonds and interest or interest coupons thereon, that have been lawfully issued by the county.” As Justice Thomas observed in Calhoun County v. Brandon, 237 Ala. 537 , 187 So. 868 (1939), in recognition of these legislative expressions, “A county is given the right to sue and be sued, as are individuals.” Just as in the case of municipalities, the court, in spite of clear legislative language to the contrary, persisted in perpetuating the “King can do no wrong” thesis.

1975This section shall not apply to bonds and interest or interest coupons thereon, that have been lawfully issued by the county.” As Justice Thomas observed in Calhoun County v. Brandon, 237 Ala. 537 , 187 So. 868 (1939), in recognition of these legislative expressions, “A county is given the right to sue and be sued, as are individuals.” Just as in the case of municipalities, the court, in spite of clear legislative language to the contrary, persisted in perpetuating the “King can do no wrong” thesis.

1928The case of Standard Boiler Works v. National Surety Co., 71 Wn. 28 , 127 P. 573 , 43 L.R.A.

1928The case of Standard Boiler Works v. National Surety Co., 71 Wn. 28 , 127 P. 573 , 43 L.R.A.

1926In Speed v. Cocke, 57 Ala. 209 , is the following language here pertinent: “The allowance of the claim must be matter of record.

1913In such a case, “if the funds are in the treasury of the county to pay the same, and the county treasurer should be proceeded against for a failure to pay on demand, it would be his duty1 to set up in defense the invalidity of the claim.” —Com missioners’ Court v. Moore, supra. “If the record should show affirmatively that the court has allowed a claim not legally chargeable on the county, the allowance of which” is in “excess of the authority with which the court is intrusted, the allowance would be void.” It is only “when the claim is of the character with which the county is by law chargeab

1884When a claim is properly filed against an insolvent estate, and no objections are filed within twelve months after the declaration of insolvency, the allowance of the claim is a matter of right secured to the creditor by statute.-*— Clark v. Know, 70 Ala. 607 .

1880Mock v. Steele, 34 Ala. 198 , is relied on in support of this position.

1880The allowance of the claim, in the absence of objection within the prescribed time, is a right of the creditor secured by the statute.” We said, also, in that case: ‘‘The same policy which demands that, within a particular period, the claims should be filed, requires that there should be a period, within which the contestation of their correctness should be made.” In Randle v. Carter, 62 Ala. 95, 104 , this court said : “ The ascertainment of the validity and amount of the demand of a creditor, in the course of proceedings in insolvency in the Court of Probate, has all the attributes of a judg

1876The judgment, decree, or order of any court, to be operative, must be certain and complete in itself, without reference to anything else by which to ascertain its meaning. —Dickerson v. Walker, 1 Ala. 48 ; Spence v. Simmons, 16 Ala. 828 .

1876The judgment, decree, or order of any court, to be operative, must be certain and complete in itself, without reference to anything else by which to ascertain its meaning. —Dickerson v. Walker, 1 Ala. 48 ; Spence v. Simmons, 16 Ala. 828 .

1870Its rejection in a contest, in which the parties were represented, would be conclusive upon the plaintiff, notwithstanding the pendency of a suit upon the claim in the circuit court at the time of the decree of in solvency. — McDougald's Adm’r v. Rutherford, 30 Ala. 245 .

1852Hollinger v. Holley, supra; Shortridge v. Easely, 10 Ala. 520 ; Brown & Co. v. Easly, ib. 564.