Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

36 Ala. 613

Marshall County v. Jackson County

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1860

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1860-06-15

Tried before the TIou. S. D. Hale. The complaint in this case was as follows: “The County of Jackson v The plaintiff claims of the vs. • Vdefendant three hundred and The County of Marshall, j fifty-eight dollars, due to plaintiff by the judgment of the commissioners’ court of Marshall county, rendered at .the August term, 1842, whereby a claim in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, for said sum of three hundred and fifty-eight dollars, was allowed, and ordered to be…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Counties are by the Code made bodies corporate, with capacity to sue and be sued; but upon the liability to be sued there is this restriction, that no suit shall be brought against a county until the claim or demand has been presented, within a prescribed time, to the court of county commissioners, and has been by such court either disallowed, or reduced and refused by the party."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 352 So. 2d 1347 - Williams v. McMillan

Relies on Boring v. Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1990

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

7018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

¶1Counties are by the Code made bodies corporate, with capacity to sue and be sued; but upon the liability to be sued there is this restriction, that no suit shall be brought against a county until the claim or demand has been presented, within a prescribed time, to the court of county commissioners, and has been by such court either disallowed, or reduced and refused by the party. — Code, §§ 763, 775, 2141. The statute, in language which seems incapable of being made plainer by argument or illustration, requires, as a condition precedent to the maintenance of a suit against a county, that the claim or demand shall have either been disallowed, or reduced and refused by the party. This regulation is indispensable, in order that full effect may be giveq to another section of the Code, which requires, that claims allowed by the court of county commissioners shall be paid in the order of their presentation. — Code, §791. If, after the allowance of a claim, there should be a refusal to pay, the party ■ injured by such refusal has a remedy, whether it results from the failure to levy the proper tax, or from the tortious conduct of the treasurer.-Tarver v. Comm’rs’ Court, 17 Ala. 526; Code, § 795. After a claim *616has been allowed by the court of county commissioners, there is no necessity for a suit against the county, and there is a manifest propriety in prohibiting suit upon it. As the restriction upon the liability of a county to be sued, so plainly declared by the statute, is consistent with the other laws relating to the same subject, and manifestly reasonable and proper, there is not the slightest occasion for departing from the literal mandate of the law. We decide, therefore, that this suit cannot be maintained upon the pleadings and facts before us.

¶2Judgment reversed, and cause remanded'.

/36/ala/613 · .json · Public domain