collection claim in Alabama

1975While he did testify that one of the officers who interviewed him with reference to the extradition papers before he was arrested told him in substance that the only thing that was going to keep him out of Georgia would be for him to raise $1,800 he owed on the personal property he was charged with having fraudulently disposed of in violation of the laws of Georgia, this does not suffice within the rule of our cases to show that the party who preferred the charge had done so in order to enforce the collection of the claim against him. . . .” In Tingley, supra, Judge Carr, on the same subject q

1975While he did testify that one of the officers who interviewed him with reference to the extradition papers before he was arrested told him in substance that the only thing that was going to keep him out of Georgia would be for him to raise $1,800 he owed on the personal property he was charged with having fraudulently disposed of in violation of the laws of Georgia, this does not suffice within the rule of our cases to show that the party who preferred the charge had done so in order to enforce the collection of the claim against him. . . .” In Tingley, supra, Judge Carr, on the same subject q

1953On this precise question the case of Tingley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 379 , 41 So.2d 276 , certiorari denied 252 Ala. 520 , 41 So.2d 280 , is of much factual similarity.

1953On this precise question the case of Tingley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 379 , 41 So.2d 276 , certiorari denied 252 Ala. 520 , 41 So.2d 280 , is of much factual similarity.

1953On this precise question the case of Tingley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 379 , 41 So.2d 276 , certiorari denied 252 Ala. 520 , 41 So.2d 280 , is of much factual similarity.

1953On this precise question the case of Tingley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 379 , 41 So.2d 276 , certiorari denied 252 Ala. 520 , 41 So.2d 280 , is of much factual similarity.

1932Meisel & Co. v. National Jewelers’ Board of Trade, 90 Misc.

1932Greene [Iowa] 360) ‘that an attorney has no right to receive any thing but money in satisfaction of a demand placed in his hands for collection, unless especially authorized to do so by his client,’ ” and cites with approval Kirk v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. 340 ; Craig v. Ely, 5 Stew. & P. 354 ; and Gullett v. Lewis, 3 Stew. 23 .

1932Greene [Iowa] 360) ‘that an attorney has no right to receive any thing but money in satisfaction of a demand placed in his hands for collection, unless especially authorized to do so by his client,’ ” and cites with approval Kirk v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. 340 ; Craig v. Ely, 5 Stew. & P. 354 ; and Gullett v. Lewis, 3 Stew. 23 .

1932Greene [Iowa] 360) ‘that an attorney has no right to receive any thing but money in satisfaction of a demand placed in his hands for collection, unless especially authorized to do so by his client,’ ” and cites with approval Kirk v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. 340 ; Craig v. Ely, 5 Stew. & P. 354 ; and Gullett v. Lewis, 3 Stew. 23 .

1893Voluntary conveyances, or where entered into with a fraudulent intent, are valid between the parties, and can be avoided by a subsequent creditor only upon averment and proof of-actual fraud, that it was executed with fraudulent intent and for the fraudulent purpose of defeating subsequent creditors 'in the collection of their claim. — Seals v. Robinson & Co., 75 Ala. 363 ; 3 Brickell Dig. 515, § 119.