Davis F. Stakely

Helen Christison was convicted of forgery in the second degree and embezzlement after altering a cancelled check drawn on Etowah County school funds by erasing her name as payee and substituting another teacher's name, then appropriating the funds. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the perforated and marked cancelled check qualified as a receipt that could be forged under the statute and that the check remained school property in her custody as bookkeeper rather than her personal instrument. It rejected double jeopardy arguments based on a prior acquittal for embezzlement of money, holding that proof of embezzling a check did not support the earlier charge and that the alteration constituted fraudulent appropriation of the instrument.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over ownership of oil and mineral rights on a 12-acre tract of land in Alabama. In 1928, the original grantor conveyed the surface rights while including a reservation clause retaining one-half of the oil and all minerals for herself and her heirs; the land later passed to the complainants via mesne conveyances that repeated the reservation. The trial court ruled the reservation void due to inconsistency with the granting clause's words of inheritance, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the deed as a whole clearly evidenced an intent to reserve the mineral interests, which are treated as separate estates from the surface. The court further interpreted the reservation language to mean one-half of the oil plus all other minerals, and remanded the case.

property

This case was a negligence action brought by plaintiff Blanchard Williams against defendants B.O. Grandquest and Carl V. Reed for personal injuries sustained in a May 1959 motor vehicle collision on U.S. Highway 31 near Bay Minette, Alabama. The jury returned a $15,000 verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial court upheld after denying the defendants' motion for a new trial. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to correct the evidence transcript, that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict despite conflicts with physical facts, and that various requested jury charges were either covered by other instructions or unsupported by the claims and evidence. The court also ruled that references to insurance were properly limited and did not require further action.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Clarke-Washington Electric Membership Corporation, an electric cooperative, and Alabama Power Company over whether the power company could extend its lines into an area south and west of Thomasville that the cooperative had been serving exclusively. The cooperative sought an injunction to prevent duplication of its lines, citing prior agreements from 1946-1947 and a 1953 contract. The court affirmed the lower court's decision sustaining the demurrer, holding that the 1953 contract explicitly allowed service within municipal corporate limits where a franchise exists, and the recent annexation of the area into Thomasville triggered that exception. The court reasoned that the contract superseded earlier agreements and estopped the cooperative from claiming exclusivity in the annexed territory.

business & regulatory

In Williams v. Colquett, appellees Colquett and Wishum filed an equity bill seeking a temporary injunction to block enforcement of a $5,000 tort judgment obtained against them by appellant Williams in an auto accident case, alleging undisclosed collaboration between Williams and co-defendant Hair that shifted full liability to them. The trial court granted the injunction and denied the motion to dissolve it. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a prior similar bill's dismissal was without prejudice, the present action was timely filed without laches or res judicata, and the unclean hands doctrine did not bar relief because the appellees sought no contribution from a joint tortfeasor.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a divorce and child custody dispute between Elsie B. Stallworth, originally from Louisiana, and Nicholas B. Stallworth, a resident of Washington County, Alabama, who had lived together in Alabama until their 1959 separation. The wife filed first in Louisiana for a separation from bed and board and custody of their two minor children, obtaining a decree awarding her custody; the husband then filed in Alabama seeking divorce on grounds of abandonment and custody, later amending to claim the required one-year period. The Alabama trial court granted the husband a divorce and custody, but the Supreme Court held that the abandonment claim failed to meet the statutory one-year requirement preceding the filing of the bill and that the Louisiana court, having first obtained jurisdiction over the children who were present there, was entitled to full faith and credit for its custody decree. The court therefore reversed the custody award, directed dismissal of the Alabama bill as to custody, and dismissed the appeal in part.

family law

The case involved Alabama Law Enforcement Officers, Inc., which sought a declaratory judgment and injunction against the City of Anniston to prevent enforcement of Ordinance No. 2457, arguing that the ordinance's ban on unsolicited telephone calls for advertising solicitations violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Alabama constitutional provisions. The trial court denied the request for a temporary injunction, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that denial on appeal. The court reasoned that the city possessed statutory authority under Title 37 of the Alabama Code to declare and abate nuisances affecting privacy and order, creating substantial doubt about the ordinance's invalidity, and noted that only an ex parte affidavit had been presented in support of the challenge. The court concluded that the ordinance's constitutionality should not be resolved at the preliminary injunction stage without fuller proceedings.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a suit by cigarette wholesalers against a competitor wholesaler under the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act for selling cigarettes below cost with intent to injure competitors and destroy competition, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The trial court overruled the defendant's demurrer asserting improper venue in Marengo County rather than Jefferson County, where the domestic corporation had its principal place of business. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that venue was proper in Marengo County because the applicable statutes, construed together, permit a plaintiff to elect to sue a domestic corporation either in the county of its residence or in any county where it does business by agent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a tenant, Mary C. Baker, who sued her apartment building's owners and management agent for injuries from falling on an uneven walkway that the defendants had negligently repaired before her lease began. After an earlier reversal of a jury verdict for the plaintiff, she amended her complaint to allege active negligence, but the defendants responded with pleas invoking exculpatory clauses in the lease that waived liability for defects in the premises. The trial court overruled the plaintiff's demurrers to three of those pleas, leading her to take a nonsuit, and she appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lease provisions barred recovery because the alleged negligence was passive—stemming from a pre-existing defective condition in a common walkway—rather than active conduct during the tenancy.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., the plaintiff sued a retail company and its employee for invasion of privacy and intentional interference with his marital relations after a debt collector made phone calls to his wife and sister-in-law falsely implying that the plaintiff had engaged in an extramarital affair in order to pressure him to pay an alleged debt. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers to all counts and granted a nonsuit. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed as to the privacy counts, holding that the state recognizes a cause of action for intrusion on seclusion or false light that can arise from such debt-collection tactics, but affirmed dismissal of the marital-interference count because it amounted to an action for alienation of affections that had been abolished by statute.

torts & liabilityfamily law

This case involved an elderly plaintiff who sued a practical nurse operating a home care business for injuries from a fall, alleging simple negligence in maintaining a loose electrical cord on a slick linoleum floor in the plaintiff's room. The trial court, sitting without a jury, awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in damages after finding the cord caused her to trip and fracture her hip. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence sufficiently pointed to the unsecured cord as the cause rather than mere speculation, that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff's habits and poor vision, and that admitting the defendant's deposition was proper under the applicable procedural rules even though she was present in court. The court rejected arguments that other possible causes undermined the finding of proximate causation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over title to a six-acre tract of land in Jefferson County, Alabama, where appellant Billie Gail Negron Busby claimed fee-simple ownership based on a chain of conveyances originating from a 1930 tax sale to the state and subsequent transfers, while appellees (heirs and descendants of original owner A.T. Echols) asserted remainder interests under 1907 homestead statutes that limited the widow's interest to a life estate. The trial court initially quieted title for the appellant but, after rehearing, entered a decree favoring the appellees. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed title in the appellees as remaindermen, allowed a lien for improvements proportionate to their interests, dismissed the appeal as to minor heir Peggy Light due to failure to serve the guardian ad litem with assignments of error, and addressed nunc pro tunc corrections to maintain jurisdiction. The core reasoning centered on the limited nature of the widow's conveyed interest under applicable homestead laws and strict application of appellate rules regarding service on guardians for minors.

propertyprocedurefamily law

The case concerned the validity of adoption proceedings for a six-year-old child, Ricky Claunch, initiated by his stepfather R.A. Entrekin in Mobile County Probate Court after the child's mother consented and the natural father, Buford Claunch, refused consent and was alleged to have abandoned the child. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the probate court's decree of adoption. The court held that the full record—including the petition, the state welfare department's investigative report verifying abandonment and the father's notice and refusal to consent, and the decree's recitals—sufficiently established the jurisdictional facts of notice and abandonment required under the adoption statutes, even without explicit findings in every document.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute where Goodner Construction Company sued Southern Metal Treating Co. for the reasonable value of labor and materials used to build a furnace, after the defendant alleged defects and sought damages by way of recoupment. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs could not recover because they had unlawfully offered to practice engineering without being licensed under Alabama law (Chapter 7, Title 46, Code of 1940), rendering any contract or implied recovery void as against public policy. The trial court entered a verdict for the plaintiffs, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that unlicensed engineering services are unenforceable even on quantum meruit theories while finding error in the handling of evidence and jury instructions regarding whether the plaintiffs' activities constituted prohibited engineering practice versus lawful contracting.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by passenger Cora Belle Dupes against East Alabama Express Company for injuries sustained in a 1958 rear-end collision between her car and the defendant's truck in Huntsville, Alabama. Dupes brought claims for simple negligence (resulting in physical injuries, mental anguish, and lost wages) and willful misconduct, though the latter count was removed from the jury. The trial court entered a $4,500 judgment for the plaintiff after overruling the defendant's evidentiary objections, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. The court held there was no error in admitting the truck driver's post-accident statement as res gestae, testimony about the damaged car's condition to illustrate the force of impact, or the plaintiff's statements about worrying over her injuries as a permissible element of mental suffering damages following physical harm.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an insurance company's suit for a declaratory judgment to determine its obligations under an automobile policy issued to John Rogers. The policy covered a 1955 Ford that Rogers transferred to his ex-wife Elizabeth after their 1957 divorce; she was later involved in an accident while married to Guy Congo, leading to medical claims by Congo and Bill Adams. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the company had no coverage liability, holding that Rogers lost any insurable interest upon transferring the vehicle, that Elizabeth was neither the named insured nor a qualifying spouse or household resident, and that the policy's assignment clause prevented continued coverage without the insurer's consent. The court also rejected defenses of waiver and estoppel, found the pleas unproven, and confirmed that a declaratory judgment action was proper even though a parallel damages suit had been filed on the law side.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over the scope and location of a private alleyway easement created by 1883 deeds dividing a tract of land in Gadsden, Alabama, where the parties' predecessors in title reserved rights of way but ultimately opened a 10-foot alley by mutual agreement along the northern edge of the front parcels. The owners of the rear parcel (appellees) sought to confirm their rights to use the alley for ingress and egress, while the front parcel owners (appellants) cross-claimed that the rear owners were misusing it to access additional western properties they owned, including for hauling coal and refuse. The court held that the easement could be used only for the specific rear parcel identified in the original deeds and not for the appellees' other western lots or buildings, enjoining the improper uses while allowing reasonable time for adjustments such as relocating heating systems. It reasoned that the alley's purpose was limited to benefiting the Edmondson and Ewing tract as granted, that past and potential future misuse justified injunctive relief under precedents like Scofield v. Perry Creamery Co., and that the comparative injury doctrine supported a remand for feasible modifications. The decree was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

property

In Winslett v. Rice, the Rices filed a bill for declaratory judgment against Winslett concerning an alleged oral agreement made alongside a written contract for the sale of Alabama farm land, under which Winslett was to allow rent-free use of farm equipment and appliances for three years as an inducement to the purchase; the bill also sought credits on the purchase-money mortgage for misrepresentations about a contaminated well and for Winslett's removal of fixtures like a sink and water heater, plus an injunction against a related detinue action over the personal property. The trial court found the oral agreement existed, reformed the written contract to include it, credited the Rices $2,250 for the equipment's rental value, $450 for the fixtures, and an amount for the well against the mortgage debt, and enjoined further prosecution of the detinue suit. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the great weight of the evidence supported the existence of the prior oral contract and that the trial court correctly applied the measure of damages for breach and the misrepresentations by placing the Rices in the position they would have occupied had the agreements been performed. The court noted that Winslett breached by reclaiming the chattels and that the credits for the fixtures and well were appropriate based on the evidence of contamination and removal.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a former husband seeking to offset a $12,500 debt allegedly owed by his ex-wife against a prior divorce decree awarding her permanent alimony, temporary alimony, attorney’s fees, and a resulting trust on real estate. The trial court overruled the ex-wife’s demurrer to the bill, and she appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that alimony is awarded solely for the wife’s maintenance and support under principles of equity and public policy and cannot be satisfied or extinguished by setoff against preexisting debts owed to the husband. The court reasoned that allowing such a setoff would improperly divert funds intended for the wife’s sustenance, and no mutual debts existed in this context despite allegations of the wife’s insolvency and nonresidence.

family lawprocedure

This case was a libel suit brought by Edward Davis, a Montgomery schoolteacher and coach, against Johnson Publishing Company for an article in its Jet magazine that reported he had attacked Rev. Ralph Abernathy with a hatchet and pistol after accusing him of an affair with Davis's wife, and that Davis had previously resigned from another school amid charges of sexual relations with students. The jury returned a verdict for Davis in the amount of $67,500. The Alabama Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or in its rejection of defenses based on source materials and joint liability, concluding that the published statements were false, that cross-examination on the publisher's intent was proper on the issue of malice, and that the full magazine was admissible to show the extent of harm. The court held the verdict excessive and affirmed the judgment only on the condition that Davis accept a remittitur reducing the award to $45,000.

torts & liability