peculiar error in Alabama

2017Specifically, this Court stated in McNabb : " 'The charge in this case was not infected with the peculiar error present in [ Ex parte] Bryant [, 951 So.2d 724 (Ala. 2002) ], that is, the jury in this case was not invited to recommend a sentence of death without finding any aggravating circumstance.

2017Specifically, this Court stated in McNabb : " 'The charge in this case was not infected with the peculiar error present in [ Ex parte] Bryant [, 951 So.2d 724 (Ala. 2002) ], that is, the jury in this case was not invited to recommend a sentence of death without finding any aggravating circumstance.

1975In the case of Oxford Iron Company v. Spradley, 51 Ala. 171 , (1874), the defendant in an action on a promissory note, pleaded that the consider *442 ation of the note was to be used for illegal purposes, to further the cause of the confederacy; and that plaintiff concurred in the defendant’s purpose; it was held that plaintiff could not testify what motives or purposes induced him to part with the consideration, as such testimony would “embarrass” the jury in their effort to find the plaintiff’s intention, and because the reception of such testimony would give the plaintiff an “advantage” ove

1939Co., 164 Mo.App. 157 , 148 S.W. 448 .

1939Co., 164 Mo.App. 157 , 148 S.W. 448 .

1939Though the conduct of the insurer may not have actually misled the insured to his prejudice, or into an altered position, yet if, after knowledge of all the facts, its conduct has been such as to reasonably imply a purpose- not to insist upon a forfeiture, the law, leaning against forfeitures, -will apply the peculiar doctrine of waiver, invented probably to prevent them, and will hold the insurer irrevocably bound as by an election to treat the contract as if no cause of forfeiture had occurred.” And more recently, in the case of Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Aaron, 226 Ala. 430 , 147 So

1939Though the conduct of the insurer may not have actually misled the insured to his prejudice, or into an altered position, yet if, after knowledge of all the facts, its conduct has been such as to reasonably imply a purpose- not to insist upon a forfeiture, the law, leaning against forfeitures, -will apply the peculiar doctrine of waiver, invented probably to prevent them, and will hold the insurer irrevocably bound as by an election to treat the contract as if no cause of forfeiture had occurred.” And more recently, in the case of Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Aaron, 226 Ala. 430 , 147 So

1934See Washburn, Adm’r, v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 143 Ala. 485 , 38 So. 1011 ; United States Life Insurance Co. v. Lesser, 126 Ala. 568 , 28 So. 646 ; Georgia Home Insurance Co. v. Allen, 128 Ala. 451 , 30 So. 537 ; State Life Ins.

1934See Washburn, Adm’r, v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 143 Ala. 485 , 38 So. 1011 ; United States Life Insurance Co. v. Lesser, 126 Ala. 568 , 28 So. 646 ; Georgia Home Insurance Co. v. Allen, 128 Ala. 451 , 30 So. 537 ; State Life Ins.

1927Fuller v. Whitlock, 99 Ala. 411 , 13 So. 80 ; Bland v. Putman, 132 Ala. 613 , 32 So. 616 .

1927Fuller v. Whitlock, 99 Ala. 411 , 13 So. 80 ; Bland v. Putman, 132 Ala. 613 , 32 So. 616 .

1927Fuller v. Whitlock, 99 Ala. 411 , 13 So. 80 ; Bland v. Putman, 132 Ala. 613 , 32 So. 616 .

1904Though the conduct of the insurer may not have actually misled the insured to his prejudice, or into an altered position, yet, if, after knowledge of all the facts, its conduct has been such ¡as to reasonably imply a purpose not to insist upon a forfeiture, the law leaning against forfeitures will apply the peculiar doctrine of Avaiver, invented probably to prevent them, and will hold the insurer irrevo- cably bound as by an election to treat the contract as if no cause of forfeiture bad occurred. — Ala. State Mutual Assurance Association v. Long, 123 Ala. 667 , and cases there cited.

1899Under it ore who at the cost of labor or skill, has developed into a more valuable species of property something he has inadvertently severed from another’s land, may, when sued in trover, be allowed an abatement in damages to the extent of the added value; “and the same rule prevails when trover is brought against the unintentional trespasser’s innocent vendee who is treated as standing in the shoes of his innocent vendor.” — White v. Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270 ; Winchester v. Craig, 33 Mich. 205 ; Bolles Wooden-ware Co. v. U. S., 106 U. S. 432 .

1899Under it ore who at the cost of labor or skill, has developed into a more valuable species of property something he has inadvertently severed from another’s land, may, when sued in trover, be allowed an abatement in damages to the extent of the added value; “and the same rule prevails when trover is brought against the unintentional trespasser’s innocent vendee who is treated as standing in the shoes of his innocent vendor.” — White v. Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270 ; Winchester v. Craig, 33 Mich. 205 ; Bolles Wooden-ware Co. v. U. S., 106 U. S. 432 .

1899Under it ore who at the cost of labor or skill, has developed into a more valuable species of property something he has inadvertently severed from another’s land, may, when sued in trover, be allowed an abatement in damages to the extent of the added value; “and the same rule prevails when trover is brought against the unintentional trespasser’s innocent vendee who is treated as standing in the shoes of his innocent vendor.” — White v. Yawkey, 108 Ala. 270 ; Winchester v. Craig, 33 Mich. 205 ; Bolles Wooden-ware Co. v. U. S., 106 U. S. 432 .