The case involved a personal injury suit brought after a boy trespassing on the back step of an ice delivery truck jumped into the path of a passing tractor-trailer and was killed when the driver appeared in a nearby doorway, stamped his foot, and said 'scat.' The jury returned a verdict for the defendant ice company, but the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge because the boy was a trespasser to whom the driver owed only the duty not to cause wanton or intentional injury. The court reasoned that the driver's ordinary conduct did not place the boy in imminent peril, there was no evidence the boy saw or heard the driver in a manner creating liability, and the boy could have safely remained on or moved differently from the truck. The judgment was therefore reversed and rendered for the defendant.
The case involved the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's refusal to renew a 1945 malt beverage license for The Krasner Company and The Tavern after the licensees filed a timely renewal application on October 31, 1944. The licensees petitioned for a writ of mandamus, alleging that no timely objections were filed by the statutory deadline under Code 1940, Tit. 29, § 30, that they received no proper notice of any hearing, and that the board's denial violated procedural requirements. The trial court granted the writ after an ore tenus hearing, finding insufficient evidence of timely objections or adequate notice, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that renewal was a mandatory ministerial duty absent compliance with the objection and notice provisions of the statute.
The case involved a state proceeding to condemn an automobile under Alabama statutes for its use in illegally transporting prohibited liquors from one point to another within Tuscaloosa County, a dry county. The trial court ordered condemnation after hearing oral testimony, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court reasoned that the evidence established the illegal transportation and that the claimant owner knew liquor was in the vehicle when he loaned it to the driver, satisfying the legal requirements for forfeiture without needing to prove the owner was personally driving.
In Ex Parte Bates, the mother of a two-year-old child filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County seeking custody from the paternal grandparents who resided with the child in Chilton County, while also filing a divorce action in the same court on the same day. The grandparents challenged the court's jurisdiction via a plea, which the presiding judge overruled, prompting them to seek a writ of prohibition from the Alabama Supreme Court to halt further proceedings. The court denied the writ of prohibition, holding that the pending divorce proceeding gave the circuit court jurisdiction over the child as its ward based on the mother's domicile, allowing the habeas corpus petition to proceed regardless of the child's physical location or the filing on the law side of the court. The decision relied on principles that chancery jurisdiction over child custody matters can be invoked by habeas corpus and that the court could transfer or consolidate proceedings as needed to address the child's best interests.
The case concerned whether the administrator and heirs of L.M. Cooper could be substituted as parties to pursue a statutory right of redemption after Cooper died while his bill to redeem land from a mortgage foreclosure was pending. The court held that the substitution was not permitted and that the pending bill abated upon Cooper's death. The reasoning relied on the established principle that Alabama's statutory right of redemption is a personal privilege of the debtor that is neither property nor descendible, as confirmed by prior precedent and the text of Title 7, § 742, Code 1940; the court further concluded that a timber contract did not extend the mortgage maturity or suspend the mortgagee's foreclosure rights. The judgment overruling the demurrer was reversed and the cause remanded.
This case arose after Ethel Smith was convicted of manslaughter, a judgment that the Court of Appeals reversed. The State, through its Attorney General, asked the Alabama Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari to review and potentially revise the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court denied the writ, leaving the reversal of the conviction in place. The brief opinion states only that the writ is denied and that all justices concur, without elaborating on any legal reasoning.