Benjamin M. Miller

The case involved defendant Will Brown, who was indicted and tried for first-degree murder after killing Pred Owens. A jury convicted him of the charge and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, which the trial court formally entered as a judgment. Brown appealed solely on the record proper, without submitting a bill of exceptions. The appellate court reviewed the record, determined it was in regular form and free from error, and therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Worthington v. Worthington, a divorced mother petitioned the equity court for additional funds from the father to cover the necessary surgical expenses for their minor daughter's tonsillectomy and adenoid removal, after the father refused despite being able to pay; the fixed monthly support amounts in the 1924 divorce decree included a clause barring any increases based on changed circumstances. The father demurred and filed a plea asserting that the decree's terms prevented modification, but the trial court overruled these and, after hearing, ordered the father to reimburse $210 in medical costs plus $50 in attorney fees. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the equity court retained ongoing jurisdiction over the child's welfare as a ward of the court, that parental agreements in the decree could not limit the father's primary duty to support his minor child in a manner commensurate with his means, and that the mother's inability to pay and the child's health needs justified the additional award. The court also refused a motion for appellate attorney fees, citing limits on its revisory jurisdiction.

family law

This case involves a minor plaintiff, Leldon Wilson, who sued the City of Albany for personal injuries sustained when an automobile he was riding in struck a rope stretched across a public street by the city's street superintendent to reduce noise near a sick resident's home. The trial court overruled demurrers to the complaint, admitted certain evidence of the claim and demands, and entered judgment on a jury verdict for the plaintiff. On appeal, the court found that the complaint counts stated causes of action, the amendment adding a next friend was proper, and most evidence was admissible, but noted an error in refusing a jury charge on one count due to lack of proof that the mayor had authority to direct placement of the rope. Nevertheless, a majority of the court affirmed the judgment based on precedent from a related case involving similar facts.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a taxpayer's bill in equity seeking to enjoin the City of Greenville from issuing temporary notes and bonds to pay for curbs and gutters under a municipal contract for street improvements. After the original contractor abandoned the project, the city awarded the remaining work to Robert L. Kenan; the complainant sought to cancel that contract and prevent payment. The trial court sustained the city's demurrers and denied injunctive relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the bill was fatally defective because Kenan was a necessary and indispensable party to the contract whose rights would be directly affected by any decree, yet he had not been joined as a defendant.

procedure

The case centered on a petition by the Western Union Telegraph Company for certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court seeking review of a Court of Appeals judgment in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Priester. The Supreme Court denied the writ, basing its decision on the precedent established in Postal Tel. Co. v. Minderhout. As a result, the lower appellate court's ruling was left undisturbed without additional scrutiny from the state's highest court. The opinion notes concurrence by the Chief Justice and two associate justices.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a petition by J. S. Reeves & Co. to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review and revise the judgment of the Court of Appeals in a dispute with Pine Hill Mercantile Co. The Supreme Court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's decision intact. The ruling was issued without elaboration on the underlying facts or issues, with the Chief Justice and two associate justices concurring.

business & regulatoryprocedure