Arthur B. Foster

The case involved appellant Edgar Roberts' conviction for first-degree murder after he shot and killed Deputy Sheriff Kyle Young at his home following officers' response to a report of a family argument and drinking on Easter Sunday 1952. Officers entered without a warrant, were shown liquor by Roberts' wife, and a confrontation ensued when Roberts grabbed a rifle and fired at Young, who returned fire. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence, reasoning that the trial court's oral charge and given instructions adequately covered self-defense and related issues, that numerous requested defense charges were properly refused because they ignored the evidence as a whole or the circumstances of the officers' actions, and that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an original petition for mandamus asking the Alabama Supreme Court to require a circuit court judge to set aside an order granting a new trial after a default judgment. The underlying action was a civil suit against a non-resident defendant arising from a collision in Alabama, in which the plaintiff obtained a default judgment after attempting service through the secretary of state under statutory provisions for out-of-state motorists. The circuit court, acting within thirty days of the default judgment, set it aside upon proof that the defendant had not in fact been served despite record indications of compliance. The Supreme Court held that a trial court has a nondiscretionary duty to vacate a default judgment within the thirty-day period when lack of service is shown, and therefore denied the petition for mandamus.

procedure

This case was a petition by attorney Dozier seeking review of his disbarment by the Alabama State Bar's board of commissioners, based on charges that he accepted a $1,000 fee in 1946 to challenge a probated will but failed to act or refund the money, along with a minor related matter. The court reversed the disbarment and discharged the defendant. It held that the proceedings were barred by the three-year statute of limitations for disbarment actions under state law, reasoning that the board of commissioners exercises judicial power and thus qualifies as a court subject to that limit, which had long expired since the alleged conduct. The court further observed that the facts would not have justified disbarment even if timely.

procedure

This case involves landowners who received title to property subject to an existing oil, gas, and mineral lease granted by their parents to Sun Oil Company; the landowners later conveyed half the mineral rights to Humble Oil and Refining Company, making the parties cotenants in the minerals. The bill in equity sought cancellation of the entire Sun lease on grounds of covenant violations and abandonment, with no relief requested as to Humble. The trial court overruled separate demurrers by Sun and Humble, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed on appeal, reasoning that cotenants holding only an undivided half interest cannot obtain cancellation of a lease affecting the whole property when the other cotenant opposes the relief.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned the validity of charitable trusts established in Charles Henderson's will, which directed the formation of an educational association after twenty years to build school buildings in Pike County, followed by a memorial association to construct and maintain a hospital for crippled children. The heirs at law challenged the trusts as violating the rule against perpetuities, arguing that the delayed and contingent gifts could not vest within the required timeframe and that the repudiated cy pres doctrine could not save them. The Alabama Supreme Court held the trusts invalid, reasoning that the interests were springing uses subject to contingencies not certain to occur within lives in being plus twenty-one years, the immediate gifts to individual beneficiaries postponed any charitable use, and neither equitable approximation nor cy pres applied under Alabama law at the time of the testator's death. The court affirmed the prior ruling and addressed related issues of costs and the inapplicability of later statutory changes.

property

This case involves a wife's equity bill seeking to set aside a 1947 divorce decree obtained by her husband on grounds of fraud, filed after his remarriage and death in 1949. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's rulings overruling demurrers and denying motions to dismiss, allowing the suit to proceed against the second wife and an administrator ad litem for the estate. The core reasoning was that the bill adequately alleged fraud through false claims of grounds for divorce combined with misrepresentations that the suit had been dismissed, which prevented the wife from defending it, and that procedural requirements for party substitution under Equity Rule 35 were satisfied by the appointment of an administrator ad litem more than a year after the husband's death.

family lawprocedure

In Redwine v. State, the defendant, charged with assault and battery, raised an insanity defense and sought to introduce evidence before trial that he was insane when making a confession, arguing this rendered the statement involuntary and inadmissible. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the confession after the State laid a predicate for voluntariness, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Alabama Supreme Court held that evidence of insanity short of showing the defendant lacked the mental capacity to serve as a witness goes to the weight and credibility of the confession rather than its admissibility, so the trial court did not err in denying the pretrial offer of proof. The Court also found that certain refused jury charges were adequately covered by the oral charge. It denied certiorari while clarifying that other evidence of the confessed facts does not render any admission error harmless under Rule 45 unless the defendant himself admitted those facts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a petition for certiorari seeking review of a circuit court's order that corrected nunc pro tunc a prior minute entry granting a nonsuit, which had lacked language disposing of the case and costs. The petitioner argued the correction should have been redated to the date of the motion hearing to preserve appeal rights under the applicable statute of limitations. The court dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy because an appeal lies from the June 1952 amendatory judgment itself, and that such a nunc pro tunc correction merely perfects the formal record of the judgment originally pronounced on September 17, 1951, without altering its effective date or creating a new appeal window from the original entry. The decision relied on precedents distinguishing formal judgment amendments from situations requiring mandamus or certiorari, and on the principle that appeals are available to challenge the propriety of the amendment.

procedure

This case involves an appeal by Leon Graves from his conviction under Alabama Code Title 51, section 569, for acting as a transient or traveling photographer without the required license while taking customer exposures in Sylacauga as part of an out-of-state photography company's operations. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the license tax does not violate the federal commerce clause. The core reasoning was that the tax targets the purely local activity of performing photography sessions within Alabama, which is distinct from interstate solicitation or transportation of goods, and is therefore distinguishable from drummer cases that struck down taxes aimed at interstate sales; the court relied on precedents such as McGoldrick v. Berwind-White and Lucas v. City of Charlotte to conclude the tax regulates a local event without discriminating against or burdening interstate commerce.

business & regulatorytaxesfederal powercriminal law

This case involved an employee who sued his employer, a mining company, for breach of collective bargaining agreements that required the company to make reasonable provisions for employee safety and health, including installing proper ventilation systems in iron ore mines where needed. The employee alleged that inadequate ventilation exposed him to harmful dust, causing personal injuries, and sought damages for those injuries and lost earnings. The trial court overruled the company's demurrers to the contract-based counts, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract provisions were sufficiently definite to be enforceable and created a continuing duty that could not be excused by the fellow-servant doctrine, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, or the employee's continued employment after knowledge of the breach.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the sufficiency of an equity bill seeking a declaratory judgment on whether certain respondents held an easement over a lot, with contingent relief against the original grantor under a 1919 warranty deed if the easement was found to exist. The complainant had acquired her interest in the property through a later deed. The court held that the grantor's demurrer should have been sustained because the bill failed to allege the specific terms or effect of any warranty that would be breached by the easement and did not show that any such breach arose after the complainant became owner. The reasoning emphasized that a declaratory judgment proceeding on the easement could include the grantor only if the complaint sufficiently alleged his present interest based on a breached covenant running with the land, and that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not expand equity jurisdiction over claims otherwise available at law.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an heir seeking to redeem property in Elmore County that had been foreclosed under a power of sale in mortgages originally executed by his deceased father. The complainant argued that the foreclosure was invalid under section 302(3) of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act because it occurred while he was in military service, and he filed suit in equity after his discharge to exercise the equity of redemption. The trial court denied relief after hearing evidence, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that decree. The court reasoned that the complainant may have been estopped from claiming redemption due to his knowledge of substantial improvements made by the purchaser without protest, that the federal Act did not clearly apply to a non-obligated heir, and that other contentions such as a parol agreement regarding rents were properly rejected under state law rules of evidence and mortgage interpretation.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case is an appeal by Morgan County from a circuit court judgment in a condemnation action ordering the taking of a strip of land from a residential lot for relocating a state highway and setting the amount of compensation due to the owner. The court affirmed the award, holding that the circuit judge's valuation after a bench trial was supported by substantial evidence from multiple witnesses and was not contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The opinion explained that the proper measure of just compensation is the difference in fair market value of the entire property before and after the taking, and that evidence of the cost to reorient the house was admissible as a circumstance bearing on the extent of any depreciation caused by the new highway layout.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel a circuit judge to order the plaintiff, Sinclair Refining Co., to answer interrogatories in a specific performance lawsuit over a 1936 lease-option contract for a gasoline station property in Auburn, Alabama. The defendants raised a defense that the contract was part of Sinclair's nationwide scheme to monopolize petroleum commerce in violation of state and federal law. The court denied the petition, holding that the answer's allegations were insufficient because they consisted of general conclusions rather than specific facts demonstrating how the transaction tended to create or maintain a monopoly or restrain trade. The court further reasoned that the interrogatories were an improper fishing expedition to obtain evidence needed to support the defense rather than to respond to properly pleaded issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking to prevent the Circuit Court of Geneva County from issuing a writ of mandamus that would have required the county's election appointing board to select specific officers nominated by the Geneva County Democratic Executive Committee for upcoming primary elections. The appointing board, consisting of the sheriff and two individuals appointed by the governor to replace disqualified candidates serving as probate judge and circuit clerk, had already selected election officers on April 19, 1952. The circuit court had ordered the board to instead use the committee's later-submitted list. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the appointing board had properly acted within the statutory 15-to-20-day window before the May 6 election and before the executive committee presented its list under the relevant code provisions. As a result, the Court issued a peremptory writ of prohibition.

electionsprocedure

This case concerns a contest in equity court to the 1950 probate in Alabama of a 1942 will executed by Jesse Thompson Requardt, with the contestant alleging that a later 1947 will, in which she is the residuary legatee and which was probated in Pennsylvania where the testator resided, revoked the earlier instrument. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's overruling of the demurrer to the bill, permitting the contest to proceed under section 64, Title 61 of the Alabama Code. The core reasoning was that questions of revocation under section 26, Title 61, the legal effect of the instruments as wills or conveyances, and any related factual matters must be resolved on answer and proof rather than on demurrer, as the probate court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its own decree on these grounds and the later will's presentation for probate in Alabama had not occurred.

propertyprocedure

In Cary v. Cary, the appellant filed a bill in equity to vacate a prior divorce decree that incorporated a separation agreement between the parties, alleging collusion in obtaining the divorce and duress in securing the agreement. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the bill, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the allegations failed to show collusion because they did not claim an agreement to suppress the truth or present false testimony. However, the court found the bill sufficient to withstand demurrer on the duress claim, based on alleged threats of personal violence that induced the agreement, along with surrounding circumstances such as inadequate consideration. The decree was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, with the defendant given time to answer.

family lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by James Kilpatrick from a circuit court judgment denying his petition for bail in a first-degree murder case stemming from a 1951 shootout that resulted in the deaths of three police officers. Kilpatrick had been convicted of second-degree murder in a related case involving one of the officers and was awaiting appeal in that matter with bail set at $10,000, but bail was denied in the other cases following a mistrial. The court decided to grant bail in the amount of $5,000, reasoning that the prior conviction and bail determination in the related case was persuasive evidence regarding eligibility for bail, and considering aspects of the evidence suggesting possible self-defense or defense of family without premeditation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves residents seeking to enjoin a funeral home operator from using property in a residential section of Cullman, Alabama, alleging that the business would create a nuisance. The trial court entered a permanent injunction after hearing evidence and personally inspecting the area, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that decree. The court reasoned that the trial judge's inspection without prior notice to the parties was within discretion and not reversible error, that the deaths of two complainants before the decree did not void it because other complainants remained to prosecute the action, and that the evidence established the area as residential with the proposed use constituting a disturbance justifying injunctive relief.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute over whether orthodontic treatments for a minor child constitute an "unforeseen need or emergency" under the terms of a divorce decree that incorporated a property settlement agreement. The agreement required the father to make additional payments beyond regular monthly support for extended illness or other unforeseen needs of the children, and the mother petitioned to require payment for the daughter's necessary treatments, which had developed after the decree. The father denied coverage under the agreement, sought a declaratory judgment clarifying its terms, and requested modification of the decree. The court held that the treatments qualified as an unforeseen need within the decree's meaning and ordered the father to pay, while denying the father's petitions because the specific issue was resolved and no changed conditions justified modification of the agreed decree.

family law