concluding clause in Alabama

2005Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Darby, 167 Ala. 223 , 52 So. 23 [(1910) ].

2005Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Darby, 167 Ala. 223 , 52 So. 23 [(1910) ].

1960The concluding clause of the foregoing statement is supported by the case of Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210 , 6 S.Ct. 617 , 29 L.Ed. 860 , where the devise was land in Washington, D.

1960The concluding clause of the foregoing statement is supported by the case of Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210 , 6 S.Ct. 617 , 29 L.Ed. 860 , where the devise was land in Washington, D.

1944Upon reconsideration of the case of Algernon Blair et al. v. Brownie Bnnell Greene, Adm’x, Ala.Sup., 18 So.2d 688 , 1 the majority of the Court concluded that a transcript of the evidence duly certified by the court reporter required no approval of the trial judge in the absence of any question as to its correctness, as provided in the concluding clause of Section 1 of the act here involved.

1940Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 186 U.S. 212 , 22 S.Ct. 820 , 46 L.Ed. 1132 . *554 The Constitution of 1901 also expressed for the first time the words “every grant or franchise, privilege, or immunity shall forever remain subject to revocation, alteration, or amendment.” In the case of Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642 , at page 659, 37 So. 682 , page 685, 3 Ann.Cas. 981, Justice Tyson, in 1904, noted and discussed this added feature of section 22, and expressed his interpretation of it in this connection, as follows: “The concluding clause, which first appears in the Constitution

1940Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 186 U.S. 212 , 22 S.Ct. 820 , 46 L.Ed. 1132 . *554 The Constitution of 1901 also expressed for the first time the words “every grant or franchise, privilege, or immunity shall forever remain subject to revocation, alteration, or amendment.” In the case of Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642 , at page 659, 37 So. 682 , page 685, 3 Ann.Cas. 981, Justice Tyson, in 1904, noted and discussed this added feature of section 22, and expressed his interpretation of it in this connection, as follows: “The concluding clause, which first appears in the Constitution

1940Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 186 U.S. 212 , 22 S.Ct. 820 , 46 L.Ed. 1132 . *554 The Constitution of 1901 also expressed for the first time the words “every grant or franchise, privilege, or immunity shall forever remain subject to revocation, alteration, or amendment.” In the case of Weller v. City of Gadsden, 141 Ala. 642 , at page 659, 37 So. 682 , page 685, 3 Ann.Cas. 981, Justice Tyson, in 1904, noted and discussed this added feature of section 22, and expressed his interpretation of it in this connection, as follows: “The concluding clause, which first appears in the Constitution

1938Bluitt v. State, 161 Ala. 14 , 49 So. 854 ; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21 , 68 So. 57 .

1938Bluitt v. State, 161 Ala. 14 , 49 So. 854 ; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21 , 68 So. 57 .

1938Bluitt v. State, 161 Ala. 14 , 49 So. 854 ; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21 , 68 So. 57 .

1938Bluitt v. State, 161 Ala. 14 , 49 So. 854 ; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21 , 68 So. 57 .

1937The uniform holding of our court is that homestead laws are to be liberally construed to the end of advancing their beneficial objects (Cross v. Bank of Ensley, supra), and in Chamboredon v. Fayet, 176 Ala. 211 , 57 So. 845, 847 , this court referred to the concluding clause of what is now section 7919, Code 1923," to the effect that in no case, and under no circumstances “shall the widow and minor children, or either of them, be deprived of homestead or two thousand dollars in lieu thereof, if they or either of them apply therefor in manner as herein provided, before final distribution of the

1937The uniform holding of our court is that homestead laws are to be liberally construed to the end of advancing their beneficial objects (Cross v. Bank of Ensley, supra), and in Chamboredon v. Fayet, 176 Ala. 211 , 57 So. 845, 847 , this court referred to the concluding clause of what is now section 7919, Code 1923," to the effect that in no case, and under no circumstances “shall the widow and minor children, or either of them, be deprived of homestead or two thousand dollars in lieu thereof, if they or either of them apply therefor in manner as herein provided, before final distribution of the

1935The case of Derzis v. Cox, 223 Ala. 517 , 137 So. 306 , is. to like effect, and cites Chambers v. Marks, supra. That of Parker v. Olliver, 106 Ala. 549 , 18 So. 40 , involved the ' question as to whether or not the bill to foreclose the mortgage was prematurely filed.

1935The case of Derzis v. Cox, 223 Ala. 517 , 137 So. 306 , is. to like effect, and cites Chambers v. Marks, supra. That of Parker v. Olliver, 106 Ala. 549 , 18 So. 40 , involved the ' question as to whether or not the bill to foreclose the mortgage was prematurely filed.

1935The case of Derzis v. Cox, 223 Ala. 517 , 137 So. 306 , is. to like effect, and cites Chambers v. Marks, supra. That of Parker v. Olliver, 106 Ala. 549 , 18 So. 40 , involved the ' question as to whether or not the bill to foreclose the mortgage was prematurely filed.

1934Nolen v. State, 118 Ala. 154 , 24 So. 251 ; Touart v. State ex rel.

1933In Summit Coal Co. v. Walker, 214 Ala. 332, 333 , 107 So. 905, 906 , it was observed: “If there is any reasonable view of the evidence that will support the conclusion announced by the trial court, the finding and judgment will not be disturbed.

1933In Summit Coal Co. v. Walker, 214 Ala. 332, 333 , 107 So. 905, 906 , it was observed: “If there is any reasonable view of the evidence that will support the conclusion announced by the trial court, the finding and judgment will not be disturbed.

1920We have thought it to he possibly of some use to supplement the opinion of the Court of Appeals ( 86 South. 88 ) as follows: The argument against the state is founded upon the word “gross” in the act of 1915, and the fact that in the concluding clause of the sentence the mandate is that the “remainder” shall be paid to the state treasurer.

1906When the defendant disclaims possession, the plaintiff has the election to take issue, and on proving that defendant was in possession at the commencement of the suit, to recover possession with costs, or, on the other hand, to decline to take issue on it, in which case the defendant has no plea to file, and recovers costs against the plaintiff; the plaintiff being entitled to take judgment, as for want of a plea, without damages and costs. —Morris v. Bebee, 54 Ala. 306 ; Bailey v. Selden, 124 Ala. 403 , 406 ; Webb v. Reynolds, 139 Ala. 398 ( 36 So.

1906When the defendant disclaims possession, the plaintiff has the election to take issue, and on proving that defendant was in possession at the commencement of the suit, to recover possession with costs, or, on the other hand, to decline to take issue on it, in which case the defendant has no plea to file, and recovers costs against the plaintiff; the plaintiff being entitled to take judgment, as for want of a plea, without damages and costs. —Morris v. Bebee, 54 Ala. 306 ; Bailey v. Selden, 124 Ala. 403 , 406 ; Webb v. Reynolds, 139 Ala. 398 ( 36 So.

1888The concluding clause of the statute — '“unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party” — is only declaratory of the common-law rule, which permitted the immunity of incompetency to be waived by the opposite party, — by which is meant the party to the transaction whose rights would be affected by the testimony offered. —Dudley v. Steele, 71 Ala. 423 .

1880Mostyn (and my wife, Sarah A. Mostyn, who joins in this conveyance for the sole purpose of conveying whatever right of dower shé may have in and to the aforegranted property), have hereunto set our hands and seals, this 24th day of January, A. D. 1874.” It was said by this court in Harrison v. Simons, 55 Ala. 510 , that the mere signature of a peggon to a deed, without being named in the conveyance as one of the grantors, passes to the grantee no interest or title to the lands which may at the time be owned by such subscriber.