Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

(93 So.)

Lowe, Judge. C. L. Price, of Albany, for ap- | Wilkinson & Smith, of Birmingham, for appelpellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and La- lant. Patton & Patton, of Livingston, for apmar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. pellee. BRICKEN, P. J. The judgment will not support the appeal, and it is dismissed, on authority of W. C. Yates v. State, 93 South. 62.

CAMERON V. STATE. (6 Div. 989.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H. B. Foster, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. SAMFORD, J. Appeal dismissed on motion.

CARTER v. STATE. (6 Div. 23.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. B. Aird, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, P. J. From a conviction for assault with intent to murder, and sentence to an indeterminate term, defendant appeals. The time for filing bill of exceptions has expired, and the trial judge certifies that no bill of exceptions has been filed with him. There is no error apparent of record, and the cause is affirmed.

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v.

HOUSTON. (4 Div. 687.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 13, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge. G. L. Comer & Son, of Eufaula, for appellant. A. H. Merrill & Son, of Eufaula, for appellee.

MERRITT, J. Judgment rendered for appellee for $250 as against appellant, and for appellant as against appellee for the costs, by agreement of parties on file.

COBB v. STATE. (6 Div. 24.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort, Judge. Proseh & Prosch, of Birmingham, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J. Affirmed, on authority of Wright v. Walker, 17 Ala. App. 57, 81 South. 689.

COLTON v. STATE. (4 Div. 706.) (Court

of Appeals of Alabama. Opinion of Feb. 7,

1922, Withdrawn. On Rehearing, June 30, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; A. B. Foster, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J. No bill of exceptions in the record. The record proper shows an erroneous sentence to the penitentiary for a term of one year. Affirmed as to the conviction, but reversed and remanded for proper sentence.

[blocks in formation]

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

FARIS v. STATE. (8 Div. 973.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 20, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C. P. Almon, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MERRITT, J. Appeal dismissed on motion.

FOUNTIAN V. STATE. (6 Div. 964.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, P. J. Appeal dismissed.

FRAZIER v. STATE. (1 Div. 459.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 13, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; John D. Leigh, Judge. Hybart & Hare, of Monroeville, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and J. D. Ratcliffe, of Monroeville, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J. Reversed and remanded, on the authority of Dr. Ott v. State, 93 South. 231.

GILBERT v. STATE. (5 Div. 401.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 6, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; B. K. McMorris, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, P. J. Charge, manufacturing liquor. No bill of exceptions, and the record proper is free from error. Affirmed.

GREESON v. HARPER LEE MACH. CO.

(3 Div. 422.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
May 20, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court,
Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Ludlow Elmore, of Montgomery, for appellee.
MERRITT, J. Affirmed on certificate.

HARPER v. STATE. (6 Div. 69.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 20, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County: William E. Fort, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MERRITT, J. Appeal dismissed.

HOLLAND v. CITY OF ANNISTON. (7 Div. 799.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 6, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; A. P. Agee, Judge. P. F. Wharton, of Anniston, for appellant. S. W. Tate, of Anniston, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J. Affirmed, on authority of Ma, con v. City of Anniston, 92 South. 913.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

KARPLES et al. v. REID. (6 Div. 830.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 9, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge. Wood & Pritchard, of Birmingham, for appellants. Hartley & Fite, of Birmingham, for appellee.

MCDONALD v. FISHER. (6 Div. 1000.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 20, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; T. L. Sowell, Judge. W. V. & C. E. Mayhall, of Haleyville, for appellant. Chester Tubb, of Haleyville, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J. Judgment was rendered in the circuit court April 1, 1920. Citation of appeal issued September 30, 1921. The record is no bill of exceptions, and no brief of counwas not filed until December 30, 1921. There sel for appellant. The appeal is dismissed, on motion of appellee.

MALONE v. STATE. (6 Div. 992.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H. B. Foster, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

tions has expired, and there is none in the MERRITT, J. Time for filing bill of exceprecord. No apparent error of record. Affirmed.

MIMS v. STATE. (5 Div. 378.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 9, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; B. K. McMorris, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MERRITT, J. Appeal dismissed, on motion of Attorney General.

PARRISH v. STATE. (5 Div. 395.) (Court PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed for want of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Apof prosecution.

KIRKLAND v. STATE. (4 Div. 711.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H. A. Pearce, Judge. Espy & Hill and Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, all of Dothan, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the charge of having liquor in his possession, and the cause is reversed and remanded. Reversed and remanded.

LIMBAUGH v. STATE. (8 Div. 914.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 6, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J. No bill of exceptions, and no error apparent of record. Affirmed.

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. JOHNSON. (6 Div. 914.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 30, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge. Tillman, Bradley & Baldwin, of Birmingham, and Huey & Welch, of Bessemer, for appellant. Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellee.

BRICKEN, P. J. This is a companion case to the case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Milton James, 86 South. 906, and the judgment is affirmed, upon the authority

peal from Circuit Court, Russell County; J. S. Williams, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MERRITT, J. Appeal dismissed, on motion of Attorney General.

[blocks in formation]

SIMPSON V. STATE. (8 Div. 874.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama, May 9, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge. A. A. Williams, of Florence, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J. There was ample evidence to show the guilt of defendant for making or manufacturing liquor, and the court did not err in refusing the affirmative charge, as re

(93 So.)

SMOOT V. STATE. (8 Div. 915.) (Court Reversed and remanded. The evidence for the of Appeals of Alabama. June 6, 1922.) Ap- state tends to show that the defendant came by peal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Rob- the cotton patch where the two state witnesses ert C. Brickell, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, were picking cotton, and after picking around Atty. Gen., for the State. several rows with them asked if anybody wanted to buy any "shinney," saying that he had a

MERRITT, J. No question is raised by the bill of exceptions, and there is no error ap-quart and wanted $3 for it. No one bought. parent of record. Affirmed.

No one knew whether the bottle contained whisky or something else. There was some evidence that one of them bought whisky that night, but whether from the defendant or not does not appear. The defendant admitted the of kerosene with him at the time, but denied that at the time he had any whisky, or sold any. Hybart & Hare, of Monroeville, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

STATE v. ROYLE. (1 Div. 493.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. Oct. 4, 1922.) Ap-conversation, admitted that he had the bottle peal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Ben D. Turner, Judge. Application by Donie Royle against the State of Alabama for writ of habeas corpus. From an order allowing the petitioner bail, the State appeals. Affirmed. F. E. Poole, Sol., of Grove Hill, for the State. MERRITT, J. The defendant was convicted John E. Adams, of Chatom, for appellee. of a violation of the prohibition laws and he apBRICKEN, P. J. This is an appeal by the peals. The court has read and considered the state from an order of the circuit judge allow- evidence contained in this record, and we are ing the petitioner bail in a habeas corpus pro- of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficeeding. The appeal is taken by the solicitor, cient to warrant a conviction. The general afin behalf of the state, under the provisions of firmative charge, requested by the defendant, section 6245 of the Code of 1907. The peti- should have been given. The judgment of contioner, Donie Royle, while confined in the coun-viction is reversed, and the cause remanded. ty jail under an indictment charging her with murder in the first degree, brought habeas corpus to determine whether or not she was entitled to bail. We have examined the testimony, and are of the opinion that the court properly allowed the petitioner bail, and the order appealed from is in all things affirmed. Affirmed.

TODD v. STATE.

(8 Div. 912.) of Appeals of Alabama. May 30, 1922.) peal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; C. P. Almon, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen.,

for the State.

Reversed and remanded.

WOMACK V. STATE. (6 Div. 18.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 9, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. B. Foster, Judge. Graham Perdue, of Birmingham, for the State.

MERRITT, J. This is an appeal from a con(Court viction of violating a city ordinance, and must Ap-be dismissed on motion, for want of assignment of errors. Dreyfus v. City of Montgomery, 4 Ala. App. 270, 58 South. 730; Perry v. State, 1 Ala. App. 253, 55 South. 1035.

BRICKEN, P. J. Appeal dismissed, on motion of Attorney General,

WIGGINS v. STATE. (1 Div. 457.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 30, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; John D. Leigh, Judge. John Wiggins was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

WOODHAM v. STATE. (4 Div. 735.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. June 13, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J. S. Williams, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MERRITT, J. Appeal dismissed, on motion of Attorney General.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 93

INDEX-DIGEST

KEY NUMBER SYSTEM)

THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX

It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests

[blocks in formation]

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See Compromise and Settlement.

10(1) (Ala.) Payment of amount less than
due not a valid accord unless bona fide dispute.
-Ex parte Southern Cotton Oil Co., 662.
When payment of specified sum, conceded
to be due, extinguishes whole debt, stated.-Id.
One disputed claim cannot be basis for satis-
faction of another independent undisputed

claim between the parties.-Id.

(1) (Ala.) Check "a/c in full to date
$81.84," meant payment offered in full satis-
faction of account, which condition is accepted
with check.-Ex parte Southern Cotton Oil Co.,

662.

(3) (Ala.) Check "a/c in full to date
$81.84," meant payment offered in full satis-
faction of account which condition is accepted
with check notwithstanding protest.-Ex parte
Southern Cotton Oil Co., 662.

[blocks in formation]

10(3) (Ala.) To secure injunction against
a spite fence, allegations must charge useless-
ness and malice.-Daniel v. Birmingham Dental
Mfg. Co., 652.

Bill alleging spite fence held to contain
equity.-Id.

Erection of alleged spite fence not enjoined.
-Id.

ADMINISTRATION.

25(2) (Ala.) Alleging that amount owing
by defendant was in "dispute" sufficient to ap-
prize plaintiff of defensive issue.-Ex parte See Executors and Administrators.
Southern Cotton Oil Co., 662.

Plea alleging account sued on involved a
number of debts and credits and was disputed
held to relate to the amount due by way of
balance and not to any claim of defendant as
a set-off.-Id.

Plea should show an acceptance.-Id.

ACCOUNT.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.
(Ala.) When bill for accounting contains

equity stated.-Tolleson v. Henson, 458.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

1. NATURE AND REQUISITES.

(A) Acquisition of Rights by Prescription
in General.

C13 (Fla.) Claimant must show clearly con-
tinued and legally recognized possession for
full statutory period.-Berry v. Perdido Realty
Co., 171.

(B) Actual Possession.

(Ala.) Suit for accounting not dismissa-23 (Fla.) Title cannot be built up on de-
ble because no showing of balance in complain-sultory logging operations on wild lands.-Ber-
ant's favor.-Indian Refining Co. v. Van Valk-ry v. Perdido Realty Co., 171.
enburg, 895.

ACCOUNT STATED.

20(1) (Ala.) On conflicting evidence as to
objection to account by defendant, issue is for
jury.-Geiger v. Gillespie, 412.

ACTION.

See Abatement and Revival.

II. NATURE AND FORM.

27(1) (La.) One may have demand upon
which he may sue in tort, or contract, and may
93 SO.-59

(E) Duration and Continuity of Pos-

session.

40 (La.) Prescription; heirs recording ti-
tle remain owners until barred by prescription,
and need not again sue within 30 years.-Rous-
sel v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 758.

Prescription; one not manifesting ownership
for 30 years does not lose ownership in absence
of adverse possession.-Id.

(F) Hostile Character of Possession.
60 (2) (Ala.) Parties who had right of
possession and gave owners no notice of claim

(929)

[ocr errors]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »