view doctrine in Alabama

1986We are inclined, without here deciding, to the view that the only exception to denial of admissibility of testimony of the accessory-after-the-fact spouse relative to all admissions or statements made by the spouse who committed the principal crime involves a situation where the accessorial spouse is involved only to the extent of knowledge gained by virtue of the admission. [Emphasis in original.]" Id.

1975Calhoun v. Calhoun, 278 Ala. 610 , 179 So.2d 737 ; Hammett v. Hammett, 46 Ala.App. 206 , 239 So.2d 778 .” Applying these principles in light of the evidence as noted above, and considering all of the evidence as revealed by the record, and with a view to the presumption favoring the trial court’s finding, and, as always, the primary consideration being the welfare of the children, this court cannot say in this instance the trial court committed reversible error in awarding custody of the child to the appellee-husband.

1975Calhoun v. Calhoun, 278 Ala. 610 , 179 So.2d 737 ; Hammett v. Hammett, 46 Ala.App. 206 , 239 So.2d 778 .” Applying these principles in light of the evidence as noted above, and considering all of the evidence as revealed by the record, and with a view to the presumption favoring the trial court’s finding, and, as always, the primary consideration being the welfare of the children, this court cannot say in this instance the trial court committed reversible error in awarding custody of the child to the appellee-husband.

1975Applying the guiding principle of best interest for the child to the facts of this case, with a view to presumption of correctness attendant in this type case, Blankenship v. Blankenship, 266 Ala. 182, 94 So.2d 743 , this court cannot say the. trial judge erred in his award.

1975Applying the guiding principle of best interest for the child to the facts of this case, with a view to presumption of correctness attendant in this type case, Blankenship v. Blankenship, 266 Ala. 182, 94 So.2d 743 , this court cannot say the. trial judge erred in his award.

1975Calhoun v. Calhoun, 278 Ala. 610 , 179 So.2d 737 ; Hammett v. Hammett, 46 Ala.App. 206 , 239 So.2d 778 .” Applying these principles in light of the evidence as noted above, and considering all of the evidence as revealed by the record, and with a view to the presumption favoring the trial court’s finding, and, as always, the primary consideration being the welfare of the children, this court cannot say in this instance the trial court committed reversible error in awarding custody of the child to the appellee-husband.

1975Calhoun v. Calhoun, 278 Ala. 610 , 179 So.2d 737 ; Hammett v. Hammett, 46 Ala.App. 206 , 239 So.2d 778 .” Applying these principles in light of the evidence as noted above, and considering all of the evidence as revealed by the record, and with a view to the presumption favoring the trial court’s finding, and, as always, the primary consideration being the welfare of the children, this court cannot say in this instance the trial court committed reversible error in awarding custody of the child to the appellee-husband.

1975We note, however, that in matter of custody this court’s ruling and the trial court’s order is never res judicata, Danford v. Dupree, 272 Ala. 517 , 132 So.2d 734 , and under changed circumstances, the trial court on proper petition, may later reach a different conclusion.

1975We note, however, that in matter of custody this court’s ruling and the trial court’s order is never res judicata, Danford v. Dupree, 272 Ala. 517 , 132 So.2d 734 , and under changed circumstances, the trial court on proper petition, may later reach a different conclusion.

1974Bosarge v. Bosarge, 247 Ala. 677 , 26 So.2d 73 .

1963There is another consideration which requires a holding that the January 3, 1962, decree was not authorized. *786 "It is also well settled that modification of the decree can only be ordered on proof of change of condition as the decree is final as to the conditions existing at the time as existing conditions are conclusively presumed to have been considered upon the rendition of the decree. * * *" Morgan v. Morgan, 211 Ala. 7, 8 , 99 So. 185 .

1963There is another consideration which requires a holding that the January 3, 1962, decree was not authorized. *786 "It is also well settled that modification of the decree can only be ordered on proof of change of condition as the decree is final as to the conditions existing at the time as existing conditions are conclusively presumed to have been considered upon the rendition of the decree. * * *" Morgan v. Morgan, 211 Ala. 7, 8 , 99 So. 185 .

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1961Although the authorities from other jurisdictions are not of one accord on the subject, some of those supporting the view that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” or “estoppel in pais” may be applicable to the state or its subdivisions, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, are as follows: Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla., 67 So.2d 433 -434; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla., 76 So.2d 291, 293 ; United States v. County of Lawrence, D.C.Pa., 173 F.Supp. 307, 314-315 ; California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Prodnets, 9 Cir.,

1954Under this view there was no error in admitting the evidence offered by the state tending to show the general character of the accused with respect to'lasciviousness.” See also, State v. Villano, 142 A. 643 , 6 N.J.Misc. 713.

1954In the case of Pinkerton v. State, 32 Ala.App. 115 , 22 So.2d 111 , we reviewed a question which was in effect analogous to the one presented in the exception to the oral charge set out in the second quotation, supra. We entertained the view that the instruction was not correct in its entirety, but only misleading in tendency.

1954In the case of Pinkerton v. State, 32 Ala.App. 115 , 22 So.2d 111 , we reviewed a question which was in effect analogous to the one presented in the exception to the oral charge set out in the second quotation, supra. We entertained the view that the instruction was not correct in its entirety, but only misleading in tendency.

1954A person or business organisation may be materially benefited by an independent contractor, or by a volunteer. * * * “ * * * the fundamental test of employer-employee relationship is right of control.” (Emphasis added.) Jett v. Turner, 215 Ala. 352 , 110 So. 702 , is readily distinguishable from the case at bar, and is of little aid, if any, in the determination of this appeal.

1954A person or business organisation may be materially benefited by an independent contractor, or by a volunteer. * * * “ * * * the fundamental test of employer-employee relationship is right of control.” (Emphasis added.) Jett v. Turner, 215 Ala. 352 , 110 So. 702 , is readily distinguishable from the case at bar, and is of little aid, if any, in the determination of this appeal.

1954Since the question as to whether or not a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications is a preliminary question, and is largely within the discretion of the trial court, we entertain the view that no error intervened in the trial court’s refusal to exclude the testimony of Dr. Wiley Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510 , 28 So.2d 542 ; Snead v. State, 251 Ala. 624 , 38 So.2d 576 .

1954Since the question as to whether or not a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications is a preliminary question, and is largely within the discretion of the trial court, we entertain the view that no error intervened in the trial court’s refusal to exclude the testimony of Dr. Wiley Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510 , 28 So.2d 542 ; Snead v. State, 251 Ala. 624 , 38 So.2d 576 .

1954Since the question as to whether or not a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications is a preliminary question, and is largely within the discretion of the trial court, we entertain the view that no error intervened in the trial court’s refusal to exclude the testimony of Dr. Wiley Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510 , 28 So.2d 542 ; Snead v. State, 251 Ala. 624 , 38 So.2d 576 .

1954Since the question as to whether or not a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications is a preliminary question, and is largely within the discretion of the trial court, we entertain the view that no error intervened in the trial court’s refusal to exclude the testimony of Dr. Wiley Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510 , 28 So.2d 542 ; Snead v. State, 251 Ala. 624 , 38 So.2d 576 .

1937Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235 , 118 So. 271 .

1937Yauger v. Taylor, 218 Ala. 235 , 118 So. 271 .