¶1 Appellant’s bill was filed with the prayer to vacate a judgment at law, on the ground that appellant had no notice of the suit, and, pendente lite, to enjoin the sale of property under execution. Handy v. Gray (Ala. *698 Sup.) 98 South. 614. 1 This appeal turns upon an issue of fact, whether appellant was served with copy of the summons in the action against her; appellant assuming the burden of making clear and convincing proof that the sheriff’s return showing service was not true in fact. The evidence has been examined with due care, and our conclusion is that the trial court was right in its judgment dismissing appellant’s bill and dissolving the temporary injunction. Affirmed.
208 Ala. 697
93 So 922
Elliott v. Garnett
Decided October 26, 1922
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1922-10-26
Relies on Handy v. Gray
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1922-10-26
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1995
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →