obvious error in Alabama

2016State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Reaves, 292 Ala. 218 , 292 So.2d 95 (1974).

2016State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Reaves, 292 Ala. 218 , 292 So.2d 95 (1974).

2016In Ex parte Welch, 519 So.2d 517 (Ala.1987), this Court held: “ ‘ “A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant, and so that one section will not destroy another unless the provision is the result of obvious mistake or error.”’ “519 So.2d at 519 (quoting 2A Norman J.

2016In Ex parte Welch, 519 So.2d 517 (Ala.1987), this Court held: “ ‘ “A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant, and so that one section will not destroy another unless the provision is the result of obvious mistake or error.”’ “519 So.2d at 519 (quoting 2A Norman J.

1983Moreover, regardless of whether or not the evidence of other offenses was admissible to rebut any defense of entrapment, it was clearly admissible to prove identity, Thomas v. State , 409 So.2d 955 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); C.

1921Such is the obvious doctrine of Collier v. Frierson, supra, in the great preservative light of which several of our Constitutions have been since ordained.

1920It thus appears that the view now prevailing on the question stated is in immediate contradiction of what was decided in Ex parte Edmunds, supra. A reading of that opinion will further emphasize the divergence now made from its unmistakable ruling.

1906But such an inference must be inevitable, or it cannot be drawn.’ Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200 , 96 Am.

1897It is on this obvious principle that a court of equity assumes jurisdiction and compels the corporation and stockholders to do that which justice requires — that is, to discharge the debt to the extent that the capital stock remains in the hands of the stockholder.” The reasons supporting the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity, so far as now pertinent, are the prevention of a multiplicity of suits; the doing of that which courts of equity alone can do — the enforcement of equal distribution between the corporate creditors, and of contribution among shareholders, and thus, while satisf

1880Non-residents are excluded from this benefaction, by the most obvious rule of legal construction ; and, in the event of their decease before a change of residence or domicile from elsewhere to this State, their families are equally excluded from the privilege. —Auerbach v. Pritchett, 58 Ala. 451 .

1847In Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mason, 308 , individual stockholders were held liable where the capital of the corporation had been paid out to them even after its insolvency and dissolution.