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

This case involved a bill in equity filed by First Avenue Coal & Lumber Company against E. S. Renfroe and Birmingham Trust & Savings Company to enforce a mechanic’s lien on Renfroe’s property for materials allegedly furnished and used in constructing improvements, seeking to establish the lien’s priority over a mortgage held by the bank. The defendants denied that Renfroe contracted for the materials, asserting instead that they were supplied to a contractor, A. C. Rooke, under a fixed-price agreement, and that Renfroe had paid Rooke in full without notice of any lien claim. The trial court dismissed the bill after considering the evidence, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained legal evidence supporting the decree and that the trial court’s resolution of the sharply conflicting testimony—on whether the materials were sold to Renfroe or to Rooke—was not plainly erroneous or against the great weight of the evidence.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a petition by Brenard Manufacturing Company to the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals' judgment in Brenard Mfg. Co. v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court denied the writ, leaving the Court of Appeals' decision in place without further examination. No substantive reasoning was provided in the opinion beyond the denial itself, which was joined by the Chief Justice and two associate justices.

procedure

This case involves a dispute over a contract in which an elderly man, O.C. Harris, agreed to transfer all his property to his son-in-law S.F. Holley and daughter in exchange for lifelong care. Harris filed a bill in equity to cancel the contract, alleging that the Holleys failed to provide proper care, including leaving him alone during health episodes, providing inadequate food, and mistreating him. The court overruled the defendants' demurrers, holding that the bill sufficiently stated breaches of the contract for continuous personal services, for which legal remedies would be inadequate, and that equity could cancel the agreement. The decree was affirmed on appeal.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerns an appeal involving Birmingham Belt R. Co. and Ellenburg. On rehearing, the court granted the application, set aside its prior judgment of reversal, and adopted an earlier dissenting opinion as the ruling of the court. The court denied the writ and affirmed the judgment below, with four justices concurring and two dissenting.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns an appeal involving Birmingham Belt R. Co. and Ellenburg. On rehearing, the court granted the application, set aside its prior judgment of reversal, and adopted an earlier dissenting opinion as the ruling of the court. The court denied the writ and affirmed the judgment below, with four justices concurring and two dissenting.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a lawsuit by the First National Bank against McMillain Lumber Company and its partners to recover on promissory notes secured by a mortgage on their sawmill plant and timber. The defendants admitted the debt but claimed the bank breached an agreement to lend a total of $15,000, causing the business to shut down, and sought to introduce evidence of substantial damages such as lost profits or the plant's value. The trial court excluded that evidence and entered judgment for the bank after a jury verdict in its favor. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that breach of a contract to lend money generally allows only nominal damages unless the lender knew at the time of contracting of special circumstances like the borrower's inability to obtain funds elsewhere, and no such proof was offered here.

business & regulatory

This case involved a suit by Ethel Armes against Lincoln Reserve Life Insurance Company for conversion of approximately 1,400 books titled 'The Story of Coal and Iron in Alabama' that she owned and had stored in the basement of a building the defendant acquired in 1922. After the city fire department ordered the basement cleared, the defendant's janitor sold the books as junk without the president's direct knowledge or authorization, leading to a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff on the conversion count. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that a jury instruction requested by the plaintiff was confusing and could be read as directing a verdict in her favor, to which she was not entitled given conflicts in the evidence about when notice to remove the books was given. The court further noted that conversion requires a positive tortious act, and issues such as any bailee status or damage from dampness were immaterial to the single count submitted to the jury.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a suit by Ethel Armes against Lincoln Reserve Life Insurance Company for conversion of approximately 1,400 books titled 'The Story of Coal and Iron in Alabama' that she owned and had stored in the basement of a building the defendant acquired in 1922. After the city fire department ordered the basement cleared, the defendant's janitor sold the books as junk without the president's direct knowledge or authorization, leading to a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff on the conversion count. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that a jury instruction requested by the plaintiff was confusing and could be read as directing a verdict in her favor, to which she was not entitled given conflicts in the evidence about when notice to remove the books was given. The court further noted that conversion requires a positive tortious act, and issues such as any bailee status or damage from dampness were immaterial to the single count submitted to the jury.

propertytorts & liability

This case was a breach of contract action brought by the individuals of Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Company against Oden-Elliott Lumber Company and its partners, alleging that the defendants failed to accept and pay for the balance of a 200,000-foot order of No. 3 common and better poplar lumber after receiving and paying for about 107,000 feet. The central disputes concerned the meaning of the contract's grade specifications, whether the lumber was properly stacked, and its condition when tendered, with each side presenting conflicting evidence on these points and on damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly; on appeal, the court affirmed, holding that evidentiary rulings were proper, the case presented a jury question due to conflicting evidence, and there was no error in denying a new trial or refusing certain jury charges.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a husband's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of a circuit court's decree that confirmed a register's report awarding his wife $12 per week in alimony pendente lite and $50 in solicitor's fees during their pending divorce proceedings. The husband had filed for divorce on grounds of adultery, while the wife cross-claimed for divorce on grounds of cruelty along with alimony and fees; the court had referred the matter to the register for determination after both sides filed answers. The court denied the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving the awards unreasonable because the evidence before the register was not properly presented or certified in the record, exceptions to the report lacked required evidentiary references under chancery rules, and procedural requirements for the petition were not satisfied. The court noted that reports of the register are presumed correct and will not be disturbed absent clear error shown on the record, and no appeal lies from such an interlocutory decree. The petition was therefore dismissed.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned Grover O. Tucker's petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Alabama Supreme Court to review and revise the Court of Appeals' judgment in Tucker v. State, 21 Ala. App. 582, 110 So. 799. The court denied the writ, thereby declining to examine the lower court's decision. No substantive reasoning or analysis of the underlying facts or legal issues was provided in the opinion. Three justices concurred in the denial.

criminal lawprocedure

Willie Prince was tried and convicted of second-degree murder for fatally shooting Joe Pritchett with a rifle after the two quarreled outside Sam Green's house; the jury fixed his punishment at 25 years in prison. On appeal, Prince challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of impeachment testimony about a pistol found near the victim and the exclusion of a question calling for the witness's opinion on whether Prince was trying to retreat, as well as the trial court's refusal of certain written jury charges on self-defense and reasonable doubt. The court held that the pistol evidence was properly admitted because a sufficient predicate existed and it was material to show possible fabrication by the defense, that the excluded question invaded the jury's province, and that the refused charges were either incomplete, unsupported by the evidence, or covered by the oral instructions. The court further found sufficient evidence from which the jury could find murder in the first or second degree or manslaughter, and therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Mintie Pennington against J. H. Hopper and the Columbus Lumber Company for damages arising from the cutting and removal of timber from land she claimed to own, which the defendants converted to their use. Hopper failed to answer interrogatories as required by statute, leading to a default judgment against him, while the jury found in favor of the lumber company and awarded Pennington $400 in damages from Hopper. On appeal, the court considered challenges to the admission of evidence, including testimony from an agent delivering notice of ownership, a method for calculating log volume based on measurements, and statements about the lumber company's role in hauling logs. The court held that the evidence was relevant and competent, that any potential errors did not prejudice Hopper or affect the outcome, and that other assigned errors were waived or without merit. The judgment against Hopper was therefore affirmed.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit by Frank M. Sharp against Alice D. Paschall and T. E. Paschall for damages from a collision between Sharp's buggy and an automobile driven by the defendants' 14-year-old daughter Sarah, who was operating it alone on a public street in Gadsden. The complaint alleged that the parents negligently permitted their underage daughter to drive unaccompanied, and this negligence combined with her own negligence to cause the plaintiff's injuries and property damage. The trial court overruled demurrers to the key count, allowed certain evidence, and entered judgment on a jury verdict for the plaintiff; the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, ruling that state law conclusively presumes minors under 16 incompetent to drive alone and deems anyone permitting it guilty of negligence per se, with sufficient evidence of parental knowledge and permission to support the verdict.

torts & liability