enunciated rule in Alabama

1995One need not state with more particularity a cause of action against an unknown party as compared to a named party....” 429 So.2d at 960 .

1995One need not state with more particularity a cause of action against an unknown party as compared to a named party. . . ." 429 So.2d at 960 .

1989Sewer Serv., Inc. , 524 So.2d 600 , 605 (Ala. 1988): "We, therefore, emphatically hold that a trial court, in determining whether to grant or to deny a motion to set aside a default judgment, should exercise its broad discretionary powers with liberality and should balance the equities of the case with a strong bias toward allowing the defendant to have his day in court.

1989In Tillis v. State , 292 Ala. 521 , 524 , 296 So.2d 892 , 894 (1974), which is cited and quoted in the original opinion in this case, this Court enunciated the rule, as follows: "In the case of Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States enunciated the rule that if a sufficient doubt as to the present competency of the accused is made known to the trial court, then the court must hold a hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial.

1989In Tillis v. State , 292 Ala. 521 , 524 , 296 So.2d 892 , 894 (1974), which is cited and quoted in the original opinion in this case, this Court enunciated the rule, as follows: "In the case of Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States enunciated the rule that if a sufficient doubt as to the present competency of the accused is made known to the trial court, then the court must hold a hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial.

1989For a more detailed statement of the background and facts of this case, see State Tenure Comm'n v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. , supra. In Sumter County Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n , 352 So.2d 1137 , 1138-39 (Ala. 1977), this Court enunciated the standard by which rulings of the Commission are to be judicially reviewed: "As we pointed out in [ State Tenure Comm'n v. Mountain Brook Bd. of Educ. , 343 So.2d 522 (Ala. 1977)], the Alabama State Tenure Commission was created by the legislature as an administrative agency with the function, inter alia, of reviewing actions of boards of e

1989For a more detailed statement of the background and facts of this case, see State Tenure Comm'n v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. , supra. In Sumter County Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n , 352 So.2d 1137 , 1138-39 (Ala. 1977), this Court enunciated the standard by which rulings of the Commission are to be judicially reviewed: "As we pointed out in [ State Tenure Comm'n v. Mountain Brook Bd. of Educ. , 343 So.2d 522 (Ala. 1977)], the Alabama State Tenure Commission was created by the legislature as an administrative agency with the function, inter alia, of reviewing actions of boards of e

1989For a more detailed statement of the background and facts of this case, see State Tenure Comm'n v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. , supra. In Sumter County Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n , 352 So.2d 1137 , 1138-39 (Ala. 1977), this Court enunciated the standard by which rulings of the Commission are to be judicially reviewed: "As we pointed out in [ State Tenure Comm'n v. Mountain Brook Bd. of Educ. , 343 So.2d 522 (Ala. 1977)], the Alabama State Tenure Commission was created by the legislature as an administrative agency with the function, inter alia, of reviewing actions of boards of e

1984In the case of Joshua v. State , 372 So.2d 885 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied , 372 So.2d 891 (Ala. 1981), this court enunciated the standard we must use in reviewing such a decision by a lower court: "Where there is a conflict in the evidence on the voluntariness of a confession, great weight must be given to the judgment of the trial judge in deciding this issue.

1984In the case of Joshua v. State , 372 So.2d 885 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied , 372 So.2d 891 (Ala. 1981), this court enunciated the standard we must use in reviewing such a decision by a lower court: "Where there is a conflict in the evidence on the voluntariness of a confession, great weight must be given to the judgment of the trial judge in deciding this issue.

1952Tf the defendant, while in the lawful possession of the money as agent, the care and custody of it being intrusted to him, fraudulently -converts such money to his own use, he would be guilty of embezzlement within the meaning of the statute, notwithstanding the 'fact that he may have had a secret or uncommunicated intention of converting the money before he -received it.” *12 The following cases are in harmony with the above enunciated doctrine: State v. Gould, 329 Mo. 828 , 46 S.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gross, 91 Ohio St. 161 , 110 N.E. 466 ; Lewis v. People, 109 Colo. 89 , 123 P.2d 398 ; State v

1952Tf the defendant, while in the lawful possession of the money as agent, the care and custody of it being intrusted to him, fraudulently -converts such money to his own use, he would be guilty of embezzlement within the meaning of the statute, notwithstanding the 'fact that he may have had a secret or uncommunicated intention of converting the money before he -received it.” *12 The following cases are in harmony with the above enunciated doctrine: State v. Gould, 329 Mo. 828 , 46 S.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gross, 91 Ohio St. 161 , 110 N.E. 466 ; Lewis v. People, 109 Colo. 89 , 123 P.2d 398 ; State v

1952Tf the defendant, while in the lawful possession of the money as agent, the care and custody of it being intrusted to him, fraudulently -converts such money to his own use, he would be guilty of embezzlement within the meaning of the statute, notwithstanding the 'fact that he may have had a secret or uncommunicated intention of converting the money before he -received it.” *12 The following cases are in harmony with the above enunciated doctrine: State v. Gould, 329 Mo. 828 , 46 S.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gross, 91 Ohio St. 161 , 110 N.E. 466 ; Lewis v. People, 109 Colo. 89 , 123 P.2d 398 ; State v

1952Tf the defendant, while in the lawful possession of the money as agent, the care and custody of it being intrusted to him, fraudulently -converts such money to his own use, he would be guilty of embezzlement within the meaning of the statute, notwithstanding the 'fact that he may have had a secret or uncommunicated intention of converting the money before he -received it.” *12 The following cases are in harmony with the above enunciated doctrine: State v. Gould, 329 Mo. 828 , 46 S.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gross, 91 Ohio St. 161 , 110 N.E. 466 ; Lewis v. People, 109 Colo. 89 , 123 P.2d 398 ; State v

1952Tf the defendant, while in the lawful possession of the money as agent, the care and custody of it being intrusted to him, fraudulently -converts such money to his own use, he would be guilty of embezzlement within the meaning of the statute, notwithstanding the 'fact that he may have had a secret or uncommunicated intention of converting the money before he -received it.” *12 The following cases are in harmony with the above enunciated doctrine: State v. Gould, 329 Mo. 828 , 46 S.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gross, 91 Ohio St. 161 , 110 N.E. 466 ; Lewis v. People, 109 Colo. 89 , 123 P.2d 398 ; State v