Case law

Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Turner

226 Ala. 642 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 23, 1933

Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 So. 738 . … THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Grissom v. State

241 Ala. 702 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 17, 1941

This is a petition for certiorari to review and revise the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals in Bill Grissom v. State ( 8 Div. 116 ), 2 So.2d 926 . On the authority of Bowles v. … J., and BROWN and FOSTER, JJ-, concur.

Dumas v. Hunter

30 Ala. 188 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jan 15, 1857

. — Dobson v. Dickson, 8 Ala. 252 ; Hood v. Branch Bank, 9 Ala. 335 ; Rains v. Ware, 10 Ala. 623 . … Miller, 2 Stew. 470 ; Brown v. Bartlett, 2 Ala. 29 . There is nothing in the argument based on the fact that some of the proceedings describe the case as a suit for unlawful detainer, and others as an appeal.

Williams v. State

215 Ala. 586 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 24, 1927

BROWN, X Section 6095 of the Code 1923, which provides that “the parties in *587 any suit or proceeding whatever, in any circuit, county or probate court, may make an agreed case containing the points of law at issue between … Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 213 Ala. 255 , 104 So. 517 ; White v. Roe, 151 Ala. 287 , 44 So. 211 . Affirmed. ANDERSON, C. J„ and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Doe, ex dem. Tillman v. Long & Freeman

29 Ala. 376 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 15, 1856

Notes, note 702; Greenleaf on Evidence, 637, § 498; Brown v. Chambers, 12 Ala. 713 ; See the treaty copied in a note to Phipp v. McGehee, 5 Porter, 413 , The judgment of the court below is affirmed. Rice, C.

Rains v. Ethridge-Atkins Motor Co.

221 Ala. 160 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 17, 1930

BROWN, J. … Taliaferro v. Brown, 11 Ala. 702 ; Whitsett v. Womack, use, etc., 8 Ala. 466 ; Planters’ & Merchants’ Bank of Huntsville v. William G. Hill et al., 1 Stew. (Ala.) 201, 18 Am. Dec. 39 ; Loeb et al. v.

Doe, ex dem. Anniston City Land Co v. Edmondson

145 Ala. 557 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 8, 1906

In this respect it differs from the one in Webb v. Mullins, 78 Ala. 111 , and is in all'respects similar to the one in Brown v. Manter, 53 Am. Dec. 223 . … It was in recognition of this principle that the court held, in Brown v. Man ter, the deed to be admissible in evidence.

Gay v. Wynn

239 Ala. 437 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 22, 1940

The judgment of the circuit court in this cause is affirmed on authority of the decision this day rendered in the case of Gay v. Stewart, ante, p. 428, 195 So. 285 . Affirmed. ANDERSON, C. … J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Opinion of the Justices

253 Ala. 111 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 26, 1949

—Childers v. Shepherd, supra; Opinion of the Justices, supra. 3. No. The Act does not purport to make provision “for the conduct of elections.” — Dunn v. Dean, 196 Ala. 486 , 71 So. 709, 714 ; State ex rel. Brown v. … BROWN, ARTHUR B. FOSTER, J. ED. LIVINGSTON, DAVIS F. STAKELY, Associate Justices.

McGinnis v. Continental Insurance Co.

628 So. 2d 470 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 3, 1993

Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12; Murdoch v. Knollwood Park Hospital, 585 So.2d 873 (Ala.1991). … West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989); § 12-21-12(d).

Smythe v. Dothan F. & M. Co.

166 Ala. 253 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 21, 1910

—Kelly v. Burke, Guardian, 132 Ala. 235, 241 , 31 South. 512 . A count for work and labor done was held subject to demurrer because it failed to ^tate “at defendant’s {request." —McCrary v. … —Lord et al. v. Calhoun, 162 Ala. 444 , 50 South. 402 ; Garrison v. Hawkins Lumber Co., 111 Ala. 308 , 20 South. 427 , and cases cited; Gamble v. Kellum, 97 Ala. 677 , 12 South. 82 .

Whitehead v. Baranco Color Labs, Inc.

353 So. 2d 793 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Dec 29, 1977

See Dick v. First National Bank of Birmingham , 334 So.2d 922 (Ala.App., 1976). Moreover, this appeal is not one by permission pursuant to Rule 5, ARAP. … Also see Ex parte Brown , 206 Ala. 528 , 91 So. 306 (1921). APPEAL DISMISSED. TORBERT, C.J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.

JOE HUDSON COLLISION CENTER v. Dymond

40 So. 3d 704 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Dec 30, 2009

Brown v. Dewitt, Inc., 808 So.2d 11, 13 (Ala.2001). … Edwards v. Costner, 979 So.2d 757, 761 (Ala.2007).

Rankin, Duryee & Co. v. Lodor

21 Ala. 380 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 15, 1852

Thompson, 12 Ala. 487 ; Governor, use &c. v. Campbell, 17 Ala. 566 ; Brown v. Lyon & O’Neal, 17 Ala. 659 ; Elmes v. Sutherland, 7 Ala. 262 ; Mauldin v. Armistead, 14 Ala. 702 ; Abercrombie v. … Brown v. Lyon & O’Neal, 17 Ala. 659 . No point is raised, as we have said before, by the assignment of errors, touching the question of fraud in fact in the execution of this deed.

Buck Creek Cotton Mills v. Stokely

236 Ala. 146 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 14, 1938

In Chambers v. … J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Warren & Burch v. Jones

68 Ala. 449 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Dec 15, 1880

Northington v. Faber, 52 Ala. 45 ; Brevard’s Executors v. Jones, 50 Ala. 221; Coleman v. Smith, 56 Ala. 369. … Brown, 66 Ala. 162 ; Marlowe v. Benagh, 52 Ala, 112. We cannot see that the chancellor has erred in pronouncing the deed in question to be valid.

Maryland Cas. Co. v. Tiffin

537 So. 2d 469 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Dec 2, 1988

Large v. Hayes , 534 So.2d 1101 (Ala. 1988); Abernathy v. Colbert County Hospital Board , 388 So.2d 1207 (Ala. 1980); Tennessee Coal, Iron R.R. Co. v. Hayes , 97 Ala. 201 , 12 So. 98 (1892). … Railroad Retirement Board , they were permitted in Smith v.

Mount Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Little

222 Ala. 605 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 12, 1931

*608 BROWN, J. … Brown v. State, 83 Ala. 33 , 3 So. 857 , 3 Am. St. Rep. 685 ; Hadley v. State, 55 Ala. 31 ; Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala. 639 , 45 So. 641 , 16 Ann. Cas. 305; Gibson v. State, 89 Ala. 127 , 8 So. 98 , 18 Am. St.

City of Selma v. Hobbs

207 Ala. 420 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 4, 1922

Decatur Land Co. v. New Decatur, 198 Ala. 293 , 73 South. 509 . See, also, note in case of People y. Seymour, 76 Am. Dec. 531 . Yet this would not invalidate the assessment against the appellee’s lot. … Decatur Land Co. v. New Decatur, supra.

Ex Parte Shelby County

516 So. 2d 525 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 11, 1987

"A 'material defendant' is 'one whose position is antagonistic to that of the plaintiff's because relief is sought against him.' " Ex parte Ford , 431 So.2d 1194 , 1196 (Ala. 1983), quoting Alabama Youth Services Board v. … Copeland v. Loeb , 269 Ala. 295 , 297 , 112 So.2d 475 , 477 (1959). In the instant case, the interests of the defendant landowners are certainly antagonistic to the interests of Shelby County.