William H. Thomas

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.

torts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawproperty

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a petition to annul a marriage on the ground that the wife's ceremonial marriage to the husband occurred in Georgia within sixty days after her divorce from a prior husband, rendering it void under Alabama law. The wife conceded the invalidity of the initial ceremony but contended that the parties had formed a valid common-law marriage through their subsequent cohabitation and mutual holding out as spouses once the statutory waiting period had expired. The trial court granted the annulment, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence of continued cohabitation after removal of the impediment raised a presumption of a common-law marriage under settled precedent such as Hill v. Lindsey and Prince v. Edwards. The court also addressed ancillary procedural questions regarding service by publication and entry of a decree pro confesso but found them insufficient to sustain the annulment.

family law

The case concerned a petition filed by the State, through its Attorney General, seeking a writ of certiorari from the court to review and revise the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Cowan v. State, 22 So.2d 917. The court denied the writ. No further reasoning or analysis was provided in the opinion, which noted concurrences by Gardner, C.J., and Foster and Stakely, JJ.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a petition for certiorari seeking review of a Court of Appeals decision in a criminal prosecution. The defendant sought to introduce the prior sworn testimony of an absent witness, Bennie Rutledge, who was serving overseas in the armed forces and thus beyond the court's jurisdiction, along with a V-mail letter confirming his location. The Court of Appeals ruled that the prior testimony was admissible because the witness was unavailable and the evidence of his service was authentic. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, upholding the Court of Appeals on this evidentiary ground rather than on issues related to the defendant's prior conviction for murder in the second degree.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim by Mrs. Dee Hyde against the estate of her deceased aunt, Mattie F. Abbott, for $990 plus interest for boarding, meals, and nursing services provided from March 1936 to November 1938 under an understanding that payment would be made. The circuit court in equity disallowed the claim after objection by the administrator ad litem on behalf of a legatee. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the decree, finding that the legal evidence established an implied contract via circumstances showing mutual intent for compensation (rebutting the presumption of gratuitous services among relatives), that the claim was timely presented under probate rules, and that a reasonable value of $30 per month was supported.

family lawprocedure

This case involved an interpleader action by an insurance company to resolve conflicting claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the life of Will Jennings, with Safronia Jennings claiming as the named beneficiary and Lila Jennings claiming as the legal widow who received the policy as a gift from the insured. The trial court awarded the proceeds to Lila, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision. The core reasoning was that Lila's testimony regarding conversations with the deceased about delivering the policy to her was inadmissible under the statute prohibiting interested parties from testifying about transactions with a decedent, and the case needed to be retried with proper evidence.

procedurefamily law

This case was a dispute over ownership of land originally held by siblings as cotenants in remainder after their mother's life estate, with one sibling obtaining a deed from the mother purporting to convey exclusive remainder interest. The complainants filed a bill to quiet title based on that deed, and the respondents answered with a cross-bill seeking to cancel the deed, remove a cloud on their claimed shared reversionary title, and allege fraud or undue influence. The trial court overruled a demurrer to the cross-bill, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that possession by one cotenant is presumed to be for all unless there is an actual ouster with notice to the others, and that recording a deed among cotenants does not create constructive notice or start the statute of limitations running against fellow cotenants without actual knowledge.

property

The case involved an elderly man in poor health who executed a deed transferring his land to his children without receiving any consideration, after being persuaded by family members that he faced imminent liability on a surety bond from a bastardy proceeding and risked losing his property. The children provided a written collateral agreement allowing him to use and manage the land during his lifetime, but later disputed his right to sell timber, leading him to seek cancellation of the deed in equity. The trial court canceled the conveyance, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the deed was procured through undue influence in a confidential family relationship, with no consideration paid and by taking unfair advantage of the grantor's weakness and distress. The court applied equitable principles allowing relief for conveyances obtained by inadequate consideration combined with the grantor's vulnerability, and determined that the clean hands doctrine did not bar the action under the facts presented.

propertyfamily law

The case involved Ben Blackmon's appeal from his conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence for the shooting death of a town policeman in 1943. The court addressed claims of error in excusing several regular and special jurors for reasons including government and war-related employment, as well as other procedural issues such as statements about eyewitnesses and jury instructions. It held that the trial court's excusals of jurors fell within its sound discretion under the relevant statutes and were not arbitrary or capricious. The opinion further found the record free from reversible error in the admission of evidence, comments by counsel, and the jury charge. The conviction was affirmed on the basis of evidence showing the defendant's motive, premeditation, presence at the scene, threats, and attempts to obstruct justice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Oliver D. Street's adult children to the validity of a will he dictated and signed on his deathbed in January 1941, leaving his estate to his second wife. The children contested the will on grounds of undue influence and lack of due execution. After a jury trial in which conflicting evidence was presented on those issues, including testimony about the circumstances of execution and the testator's relationships, the trial court entered judgment on the verdict upholding the will; the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence created material factual conflicts that properly required jury resolution rather than directed verdicts.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge to a criminal conviction where the defendant argued that the trial court erred by allowing the state to present additional witness testimony after the defendant had closed his case. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's discretionary decision to permit the testimony despite it not being strictly rebuttal. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, noting that under established precedent, the timing and manner of introducing evidence, including recalling or allowing additional witnesses, is within the trial judge's discretion and not subject to review for abuse unless clearly improper. The court found no such impropriety here and denied the petition for certiorari.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the reformation of land deeds executed in 1935 between the Caseys, Mrs. Berry, Theney Howard, and W.O. Abney. The plaintiffs sought to reform the conveyances to include a condition that Abney would care for the Howards in exchange for a remainder interest in the property after Theney Howard's life estate. The court reformed the first deed to reflect the parties' intended condition but declared Abney's remainder interest forfeited due to his death shortly after the deed's execution without fulfilling the caregiving obligation, ultimately vesting full title in the complainant. The core reasoning was that the scrivener had mistakenly omitted the condition from the deed, and Abney's failure to perform warranted forfeiture under the circumstances.

property

This case involves an appeal by American Life Insurance Co. from a circuit court judgment in favor of the plaintiff on two counts of an insurance policy, including a double indemnity provision, following a jury verdict. The court addressed motions to strike the bill of exceptions and portions of the transcript of evidence for noncompliance with 1943 statutes and Supreme Court Rule 48 regarding court reporter certifications and filing deadlines. It determined that the transcript was timely filed and certified in most respects, with no timely objections by the parties, though it struck the transcript related to a plea in abatement filed without authority. On the merits, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the motion for a new trial should have been granted because the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict was so decided as to convince the court that the verdict was wrong and unjust.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the right to redeem Alabama land sold at a tax sale under the 1935 Act (codified as Section 303, Title 51, Code 1940), which allows owners, heirs, executors, purchasers, and other interest holders to redeem within three years. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the appellant's answer and cross bill, which sought to assert redemption rights after an executor conveyed the property to the appellant less than two years after the 1942 tax sale. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory redemption period had not expired, the cross bill failed to allege compliance with conditions precedent for a valid tax deed, and a foreign executor could not abandon or estop redemption rights on behalf of local beneficiaries or heirs who remained the real parties in interest.

propertytaxesprocedure

In Powers v. State, the petitioner sought certiorari review by the Alabama Supreme Court of a Court of Appeals decision reported at 31 Ala.App. 614, 21 So.2d 282. The Supreme Court denied the writ, leaving the lower court's judgment undisturbed. The brief opinion states no reasons for the denial and notes that three justices concurred.

criminal lawprocedure