prohibition rule in Alabama

2015Nevertheless, “[i]n the exercise of this power, the prohibition or test contained in the' statute, ordinance, or rule should be enacted, ordained, or adopted with reference to the object to be attained and as not unduly to interfere with private business, or impose unusual or unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations or professions.” Id.

1986For decisions holding that a guarantor may not waive rights afforded by § 7-9-504 (3), see United States v. Willis , 593 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1979); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Lototsky , 549 F. Supp. 996 (E.D.Pa. 1982); Commercial Discount Corp. v. King , 515 F. Supp. 988 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Small Business Administration v. Chatlins Dept.

1986For decisions holding that a guarantor may not waive rights afforded by § 7-9-504 (3), see United States v. Willis , 593 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1979); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Lototsky , 549 F. Supp. 996 (E.D.Pa. 1982); Commercial Discount Corp. v. King , 515 F. Supp. 988 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Small Business Administration v. Chatlins Dept.

1986For decisions holding that a guarantor may not waive rights afforded by § 7-9-504 (3), see United States v. Willis , 593 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1979); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Lototsky , 549 F. Supp. 996 (E.D.Pa. 1982); Commercial Discount Corp. v. King , 515 F. Supp. 988 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Small Business Administration v. Chatlins Dept.

1982"A That's correct." It is clear that the questions and answers excepted to by appellant did not fall under the prohibition of the rule announced in Houston , supra, in that they do not evidence that appellant made any assertion of his right to remain silent.

1982Bradley v. Deaton, 208 Ala. 582 , 94 So. 767 (1922).

1982Bradley v. Deaton, 208 Ala. 582 , 94 So. 767 (1922).

1936This question was considered in Parke v. Bradley, State Treasurer, 204 Ala. 455 , 86 So. 28 , and in Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51 , 13 So. 416 , 21 L.R.A. 529 , 46 Am.St.Rep. 98 , and the right of the Legislature to delegate this appointing power fully sustained.

1936This question was considered in Parke v. Bradley, State Treasurer, 204 Ala. 455 , 86 So. 28 , and in Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51 , 13 So. 416 , 21 L.R.A. 529 , 46 Am.St.Rep. 98 , and the right of the Legislature to delegate this appointing power fully sustained.

1936This question was considered in Parke v. Bradley, State Treasurer, 204 Ala. 455 , 86 So. 28 , and in Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51 , 13 So. 416 , 21 L.R.A. 529 , 46 Am.St.Rep. 98 , and the right of the Legislature to delegate this appointing power fully sustained.

1922R. 84; State v. Goldstein (Ala. App.) 93 South. 308 . 2 In the exercise of this power, the prohibition or test contained in a statute should be enacted with reference to that object as not unduly to “interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.” Smith v. Texas, supra; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 , 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L.

1922R. 84; State v. Goldstein (Ala. App.) 93 South. 308 . 2 In the exercise of this power, the prohibition or test contained in a statute should be enacted with reference to that object as not unduly to “interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.” Smith v. Texas, supra; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 , 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L.

1922R. 84; State v. Goldstein (Ala. App.) 93 South. 308 . 2 In the exercise of this power, the prohibition or test contained in a statute should be enacted with reference to that object as not unduly to “interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.” Smith v. Texas, supra; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 , 14 Sup. Ct. 499, 38 L.

1897Rep. 433. ‘The modern authorities, almost without exception, utter the same strong condemnatory language.’' — Corey v. Wadsworth, 99 Ala. 68 . “ ‘That appellants came within the prohibition of this rule is beyond controversy.’ — Roseboom v. Warner, 23 Northeastern Rep. 339; 132 Ill. 81 (directly in point). ‘This principle was applied to the taking of a mortgage by the directors on the property of the corporation to secure their liability as sureties on the note of the cor poration.’' — Haywood v. Lumber Co., 64 Wis. 639 . ‘It seems to be well settled that the directors of an insolvent corporat

1897Rep. 433. ‘The modern authorities, almost without exception, utter the same strong condemnatory language.’' — Corey v. Wadsworth, 99 Ala. 68 . “ ‘That appellants came within the prohibition of this rule is beyond controversy.’ — Roseboom v. Warner, 23 Northeastern Rep. 339; 132 Ill. 81 (directly in point). ‘This principle was applied to the taking of a mortgage by the directors on the property of the corporation to secure their liability as sureties on the note of the cor poration.’' — Haywood v. Lumber Co., 64 Wis. 639 . ‘It seems to be well settled that the directors of an insolvent corporat

1897Rep. 433. ‘The modern authorities, almost without exception, utter the same strong condemnatory language.’' — Corey v. Wadsworth, 99 Ala. 68 . “ ‘That appellants came within the prohibition of this rule is beyond controversy.’ — Roseboom v. Warner, 23 Northeastern Rep. 339; 132 Ill. 81 (directly in point). ‘This principle was applied to the taking of a mortgage by the directors on the property of the corporation to secure their liability as sureties on the note of the cor poration.’' — Haywood v. Lumber Co., 64 Wis. 639 . ‘It seems to be well settled that the directors of an insolvent corporat