oft-repeated rule in Alabama

1978It is also subject to just criticism in its use of `all reasonable doubt' instead of the conventional `a reasonable doubt,' as found in Alldredge v. State , 45 Ala. App. 171 , 227 So.2d 803 , and Brown v. State , 45 Ala. App. 391 , 231 So.2d 167 .

1978It is also subject to just criticism in its use of `all reasonable doubt' instead of the conventional `a reasonable doubt,' as found in Alldredge v. State , 45 Ala. App. 171 , 227 So.2d 803 , and Brown v. State , 45 Ala. App. 391 , 231 So.2d 167 .

1978It is also subject to just criticism in its use of `all reasonable doubt' instead of the conventional `a reasonable doubt,' as found in Alldredge v. State , 45 Ala. App. 171 , 227 So.2d 803 , and Brown v. State , 45 Ala. App. 391 , 231 So.2d 167 .

1978It is also subject to just criticism in its use of `all reasonable doubt' instead of the conventional `a reasonable doubt,' as found in Alldredge v. State , 45 Ala. App. 171 , 227 So.2d 803 , and Brown v. State , 45 Ala. App. 391 , 231 So.2d 167 .

1978Breazeale v. State , 51 Ala. App. 320 , 285 So.2d 130 (1973) contains the correct rule: "Appellant's only other assertion or assignment of error is based on the court's refusal to give defendant's requested charge No. 1: `The Court charges the jury that unless you believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant broke and entered the shop in question, you cannot convict this defendant.' "The requested instruction runs afoul of the oft repeated rule to the effect that a trial court is not to be reversed for refusing a charge that pretermits consideration of the evidence as a basis for a

1978Breazeale v. State , 51 Ala. App. 320 , 285 So.2d 130 (1973) contains the correct rule: "Appellant's only other assertion or assignment of error is based on the court's refusal to give defendant's requested charge No. 1: `The Court charges the jury that unless you believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant broke and entered the shop in question, you cannot convict this defendant.' "The requested instruction runs afoul of the oft repeated rule to the effect that a trial court is not to be reversed for refusing a charge that pretermits consideration of the evidence as a basis for a

1982He relies particularly upon Miller v. State, 290 Ala. 248 , 275 So.2d 675 (1973), in which it is clearly and succinctly stated at 275 So.2d 679 : “Since these are the witnesses relied on by the State for corroboration, the question is whether they were also accomplices.

1982He relies particularly upon Miller v. State, 290 Ala. 248 , 275 So.2d 675 (1973), in which it is clearly and succinctly stated at 275 So.2d 679 : “Since these are the witnesses relied on by the State for corroboration, the question is whether they were also accomplices.

1979Shivers v. Shivers , 277 Ala. 400 , 171 So.2d 109 (1965).

1979Shivers v. Shivers , 277 Ala. 400 , 171 So.2d 109 (1965).

1978Breazeale v. State , 51 Ala. App. 320 , 285 So.2d 130 (1973) contains the correct rule: "Appellant's only other assertion or assignment of error is based on the court's refusal to give defendant's requested charge No. 1: `The Court charges the jury that unless you believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant broke and entered the shop in question, you cannot convict this defendant.' "The requested instruction runs afoul of the oft repeated rule to the effect that a trial court is not to be reversed for refusing a charge that pretermits consideration of the evidence as a basis for a

1978Breazeale v. State , 51 Ala. App. 320 , 285 So.2d 130 (1973) contains the correct rule: "Appellant's only other assertion or assignment of error is based on the court's refusal to give defendant's requested charge No. 1: `The Court charges the jury that unless you believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant broke and entered the shop in question, you cannot convict this defendant.' "The requested instruction runs afoul of the oft repeated rule to the effect that a trial court is not to be reversed for refusing a charge that pretermits consideration of the evidence as a basis for a

1970The rule applicable to this first assignment is contained in Baggette v. Baggette, 279 Ala. 167 , 182 So.2d 898 , wherein the Supreme Court had this to say: “The well-known and oft-repeated rule is, that where evidence is heard orally by the trial court, the judgment or decree of that court will not be disturbed unless it is plainly and palpably wrong and unjust.

1970The rule applicable to this first assignment is contained in Baggette v. Baggette, 279 Ala. 167 , 182 So.2d 898 , wherein the Supreme Court had this to say: “The well-known and oft-repeated rule is, that where evidence is heard orally by the trial court, the judgment or decree of that court will not be disturbed unless it is plainly and palpably wrong and unjust.

1969Lovelace v. McMillan, 265 Ala. 290 , 90 So.2d 822 .

1969Lovelace v. McMillan, 265 Ala. 290 , 90 So.2d 822 .

1969As noted in Daniels v. Trawick, 232 Ala. 466 , 168 So. 551 , "* * * the chancellor saw and heard the witnesses, and could closely observe the contending principals in the case — all of which gave him an advantage which, as observed in Children’s Aid Society v. Davis, supra, ‘must be of peculiar value in a case like this.’ ” It is a well-known and oft-repeated rule of review that where the evidence is heard ore tenus by the trial judge, his conclusions will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong and unjust.

1969As noted in Daniels v. Trawick, 232 Ala. 466 , 168 So. 551 , "* * * the chancellor saw and heard the witnesses, and could closely observe the contending principals in the case — all of which gave him an advantage which, as observed in Children’s Aid Society v. Davis, supra, ‘must be of peculiar value in a case like this.’ ” It is a well-known and oft-repeated rule of review that where the evidence is heard ore tenus by the trial judge, his conclusions will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong and unjust.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1957Kendrick v. Boyd, 1951, 255 Ala. 53 , 51 So.2d 694 ; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1 , 18 So.2d 810 ; Tucker v. State, 1935, 231 Ala. 350 , 165 So. 249 ; Smith v. Stiles, 1916, 195 Ala. 107 , 70 So. 905 . *544 Applying the above well known canons of constitutional construction to the case in hand, we conclude that § 260 of Title 7, .as amended, is not violative of § 45, Alabama Constitution.

1917Hence, without attempting, for it is unnecessary, to at this time define the legal result as between the dilemmas indicated, it must be held that the first assignment of error presents nothing this court can review. (2) On the issue of fact litigated, viz., whether the mortgage or mortgages executed the Russells on Chaney Russell’s land were alone given to secure the indebtedness of the husband, no part of which was for the security of the indebtedness of the wife, Chaney, the oft-repeated rule established in Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630 , 9 South. 738 , for the review on appeal of conclusions