failure to file claim in Alabama

1958Anderson v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 303 , 58 So. 256 ; City of Birmingham v. Darden, 1 Ala.App. 479 , 55 So. 1014 .

1915Such a claim or demand as the latter falls within the provisions of section 118Í of the Code, Avhich likeAvise requires a filing of a statement of it with the city authorities; but in construing the section it has beeir held both by this court and the Supreme Court that the section is similar to the statute of nonclaim applicable to administrators, and that a failure to file the claim is defensive matter property available only by plea .—An derson v. Birmingham, 177 Ala. 303 , 58 South. 256 ; Birmingham v. Darden, 1 Ala. App. 479 , 55 South. 1014 .

1958Anderson v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 303 , 58 So. 256 ; City of Birmingham v. Darden, 1 Ala.App. 479 , 55 So. 1014 .

1915Such a claim or demand as the latter falls within the provisions of section 118Í of the Code, Avhich likeAvise requires a filing of a statement of it with the city authorities; but in construing the section it has beeir held both by this court and the Supreme Court that the section is similar to the statute of nonclaim applicable to administrators, and that a failure to file the claim is defensive matter property available only by plea .—An derson v. Birmingham, 177 Ala. 303 , 58 South. 256 ; Birmingham v. Darden, 1 Ala. App. 479 , 55 South. 1014 .

1959In 1915, the Court of Appeals cited the Darden and Anderson cases, supra, as authority for the following statements: “* * * the section (§ 1191, Code 1907) (§ 476, Title 37, Code 1940) is similar to the statute of nonclaim applicable to administrators, and that a failure to file the claim is defensive matter properly available only by plea. * * * Hence it was not necessary for the complaint in this case to allege a filing of a statement of the demand sued on with the city authorities before bringing suit.” (Par. supplied.) City of Huntsville v. Goodenrath, 13 Ala.App. 579, 585 , 68 So. 676, 67

1959In 1915, the Court of Appeals cited the Darden and Anderson cases, supra, as authority for the following statements: “* * * the section (§ 1191, Code 1907) (§ 476, Title 37, Code 1940) is similar to the statute of nonclaim applicable to administrators, and that a failure to file the claim is defensive matter properly available only by plea. * * * Hence it was not necessary for the complaint in this case to allege a filing of a statement of the demand sued on with the city authorities before bringing suit.” (Par. supplied.) City of Huntsville v. Goodenrath, 13 Ala.App. 579, 585 , 68 So. 676, 67

1921There is no alternative, as with the claims of third persons (Code, § 2593), of presenting them personally to the representative in lieu of such filing, but the mode prescribed is exclusive and mandatory, and the consequence of a failure to conform to that mode is that such claims “are forever barred, and the payment or allowance thereof is prohibited.” This statutory requirement is in no sense a rule of practice merely for probate courts, birt is a substantive,rule of conduct for personal representatives who claim to be creditors of their intestates’ estates in whatever forum the administrati

1921There is no alternative, as with the claims of third persons (Code, § 2593), of presenting them personally to the representative in lieu of such filing, but the mode prescribed is exclusive and mandatory, and the consequence of a failure to conform to that mode is that such claims “are forever barred, and the payment or allowance thereof is prohibited.” This statutory requirement is in no sense a rule of practice merely for probate courts, birt is a substantive,rule of conduct for personal representatives who claim to be creditors of their intestates’ estates in whatever forum the administrati

1921There is no alternative, as with the claims of third persons (Code, § 2593), of presenting them personally to the representative in lieu of such filing, but the mode prescribed is exclusive and mandatory, and the consequence of a failure to conform to that mode is that such claims “are forever barred, and the payment or allowance thereof is prohibited.” This statutory requirement is in no sense a rule of practice merely for probate courts, birt is a substantive,rule of conduct for personal representatives who claim to be creditors of their intestates’ estates in whatever forum the administrati

1921There is no alternative, as with the claims of third persons (Code, § 2593), of presenting them personally to the representative in lieu of such filing, but the mode prescribed is exclusive and mandatory, and the consequence of a failure to conform to that mode is that such claims “are forever barred, and the payment or allowance thereof is prohibited.” This statutory requirement is in no sense a rule of practice merely for probate courts, birt is a substantive,rule of conduct for personal representatives who claim to be creditors of their intestates’ estates in whatever forum the administrati

1921There is no alternative, as with the claims of third persons (Code, § 2593), of presenting them personally to the representative in lieu of such filing, but the mode prescribed is exclusive and mandatory, and the consequence of a failure to conform to that mode is that such claims “are forever barred, and the payment or allowance thereof is prohibited.” This statutory requirement is in no sense a rule of practice merely for probate courts, birt is a substantive,rule of conduct for personal representatives who claim to be creditors of their intestates’ estates in whatever forum the administrati

1895The debt being extinguished by the failure to file the claim, all liens which it supported fell with it; — Ray v. Thompson, 43 Ala. 451 ; Watson v. Rose, 51 Ala. 292 ; Halfman v. Ellison, 51 Ala. 543 ; Thames v. Herbert, 61 Ala. 340 , and authorities supra. The defendant was allowed credit by the jury for the four months rent contracted by the .plaintiff.

1895The debt being extinguished by the failure to file the claim, all liens which it supported fell with it; — Ray v. Thompson, 43 Ala. 451 ; Watson v. Rose, 51 Ala. 292 ; Halfman v. Ellison, 51 Ala. 543 ; Thames v. Herbert, 61 Ala. 340 , and authorities supra. The defendant was allowed credit by the jury for the four months rent contracted by the .plaintiff.

1895The debt being extinguished by the failure to file the claim, all liens which it supported fell with it; — Ray v. Thompson, 43 Ala. 451 ; Watson v. Rose, 51 Ala. 292 ; Halfman v. Ellison, 51 Ala. 543 ; Thames v. Herbert, 61 Ala. 340 , and authorities supra. The defendant was allowed credit by the jury for the four months rent contracted by the .plaintiff.

1859In Murdock v. Rousseau’s Adm’r, 32 Ala. 611 , we construed section 1847 of the Code, and held that a failure to file a claim against an insolvent estate, within nine months after the declaration of insolvency, completely destroyed such claim as a legal demand against the estate.