The case concerned a defendant indicted on counts of grand larceny and embezzlement for taking $3,500 from a victim under the pretense of purchasing stock but instead issuing a note and converting the funds. The jury convicted her of embezzlement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, holding that embezzlement is a statutory offense overlapping with larceny or false pretenses, and a conviction stands if its elements—lawful possession via trust followed by fraudulent conversion—are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even when elements of other crimes are also present. The evidence was deemed sufficient for the jury to find those elements, including that the victim retained title to the money and the note was merely a device to conceal the scheme.
The case was a common law libel action brought by plaintiff James A. McCollum against the Birmingham Post Co. over a 1949 newspaper article. After the defendant initiated a separate statutory proceeding to perpetuate the plaintiff's testimony as a witness, and the plaintiff did not respond, the trial court dismissed the libel suit. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the dismissal on appeal, holding that the perpetuation proceeding was distinct from the underlying action and that failure to participate in it did not justify dismissing the plaintiff's case. The court also confirmed that the appeal was timely filed.
This case involves a petition for certiorari filed in the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a decision by the Court of Appeals in Shouse v. State. The Supreme Court declined to grant the writ, following its settled rules that bar review of factual questions or the application of law to facts found by the lower court unless the opinion states the facts fully and shows an erroneous legal application. The same limits apply to claims of error without injury and to judgments supported by any evidence. The Court of Appeals had adequately addressed and correctly resolved the issues raised about admission and exclusion of testimony and refusal of requested instructions, so the petition was denied.
This case involved a will contest in which Jacob W. Hornaday, Jr. challenged the probate of his father's will on grounds that his brother Paul had fraudulently induced the testator to exclude the contestant by making false representations about the contestant's conduct toward their mother and about the contestant's handling of the testator's estate. The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the circuit court's order sustaining demurrers to the contestant's pleas alleging fraud. The court held that the pleas were legally insufficient because they failed to allege with particularity a false statement of material fact that was known to be false or made under circumstances creating a legal duty to know the truth, or that was a material inducement to the will's execution. The decision rested on the principle that fraud sufficient to invalidate a will requires deliberate false representations or equivalent circumstances, and vague or conclusory allegations do not meet that standard.
This case was a wrongful death suit under Alabama's Homicide Act brought by the personal representative of Geneva Jackson against Pike Taxi Company, alleging that its employee negligently drove a taxi that struck and killed her as a pedestrian at a Mobile intersection. The jury returned a $5,000 verdict for the plaintiff after hearing conflicting testimony about traffic lights, directions of travel, and whether either party was negligent. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's request for a directed verdict and the exclusion of a police accident report (which state law barred from use as evidence), but it reversed the judgment because two special jury charges improperly invaded the jury's province by deviating from the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The case involved D.C. Littlefield's conviction in circuit court for criminal false pretense under Alabama Code § 209, Title 14, for obtaining a county warrant by falsely claiming that Robert Connell had furnished lumber worth $83.72 to Chilton County. Littlefield appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment after finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and no merit in his claim that the state needed to disprove his own supply of the lumber. On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court of Alabama denied review, explaining that the indictment's averments rendered the defendant's furnishing of lumber irrelevant to the charged offense and that the Court of Appeals' factual findings are not subject to reexamination on certiorari.