reasons underlying doctrine in Alabama

1974“In Roden and Son v. State, 30 Ala.App. 229 , 3 So.2d 420, 421 , Justice Simpson stated that: ‘A judgment in a civil case is not conclusive as res judicata in a criminal case, or vice versa, there being no mutuality of parties and a different degree of proof, respectively, being required.’ “In 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 50, the general rule, amply supported by authority, is states as follows: ‘ * * * it is generally held that a judgment or opinion in a civil action, or the record of proceedings therein, is not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution involving the same matter.’ “The rea

1974“In Roden and Son v. State, 30 Ala.App. 229 , 3 So.2d 420, 421 , Justice Simpson stated that: ‘A judgment in a civil case is not conclusive as res judicata in a criminal case, or vice versa, there being no mutuality of parties and a different degree of proof, respectively, being required.’ “In 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 50, the general rule, amply supported by authority, is states as follows: ‘ * * * it is generally held that a judgment or opinion in a civil action, or the record of proceedings therein, is not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution involving the same matter.’ “The rea

2006Id. , 471 U.S. at 392 -93 , 105 S.Ct. at [2070], 85 L.Ed.2d at 414 ; United-States v. Rivera , 825 F.2d 152 , 158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 979 , 108 S.Ct. 494 , 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987).

2006Id. , 471 U.S. at 392 -93 , 105 S.Ct. at [2070], 85 L.Ed.2d at 414 ; United-States v. Rivera , 825 F.2d 152 , 158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 979 , 108 S.Ct. 494 , 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987).

2006Id. , 471 U.S. at 392 -93 , 105 S.Ct. at [2070], 85 L.Ed.2d at 414 ; United-States v. Rivera , 825 F.2d 152 , 158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 979 , 108 S.Ct. 494 , 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987).

2006Id. , 471 U.S. at 392 -93 , 105 S.Ct. at [2070], 85 L.Ed.2d at 414 ; United-States v. Rivera , 825 F.2d 152 , 158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 979 , 108 S.Ct. 494 , 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987).

2006Id. , 471 U.S. at 392 -93 , 105 S.Ct. at [2070], 85 L.Ed.2d at 414 ; United-States v. Rivera , 825 F.2d 152 , 158 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 979 , 108 S.Ct. 494 , 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987).

1974“In Roden and Son v. State, 30 Ala.App. 229 , 3 So.2d 420, 421 , Justice Simpson stated that: ‘A judgment in a civil case is not conclusive as res judicata in a criminal case, or vice versa, there being no mutuality of parties and a different degree of proof, respectively, being required.’ “In 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 50, the general rule, amply supported by authority, is states as follows: ‘ * * * it is generally held that a judgment or opinion in a civil action, or the record of proceedings therein, is not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution involving the same matter.’ “The rea

1974“In Roden and Son v. State, 30 Ala.App. 229 , 3 So.2d 420, 421 , Justice Simpson stated that: ‘A judgment in a civil case is not conclusive as res judicata in a criminal case, or vice versa, there being no mutuality of parties and a different degree of proof, respectively, being required.’ “In 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 50, the general rule, amply supported by authority, is states as follows: ‘ * * * it is generally held that a judgment or opinion in a civil action, or the record of proceedings therein, is not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution involving the same matter.’ “The rea

1932In these functions he should be free and untrammeled.” Appellee cites Chancellor v. Chancellor, 177 Ala. 44 , 58 So. 423 , 45 L.

1932In these functions he should be free and untrammeled.” Appellee cites Chancellor v. Chancellor, 177 Ala. 44 , 58 So. 423 , 45 L.

1932After a citation of the authorities, the court in-Be Wood, supra, has epitomized the reasons underlying the principle as follows: “The reasons for the rule stated in those decisions are * * * ■ that such an arrangement is contrary to public policy, as incompatible with the absolute control which court and guardian should have at all times over the fund in order to preserve it, as placing temptation in the way of ofljcefs of surety companies in no way under the jurisdiction of the court to obtain favors from weak banks in return for the bestowal or continuance of deposits, as hindering the guar

1929In Puckett v. State, 204 Ala. 238 , 85 So. 452 , and Hockstein v. State, 214 Ala. 563 , 108 So. 571 , relied upon by appellant, it did not appear the employé involved had the general reputation of a bootlegger, much less actual notice of such fact to the owner.

1929In Puckett v. State, 204 Ala. 238 , 85 So. 452 , and Hockstein v. State, 214 Ala. 563 , 108 So. 571 , relied upon by appellant, it did not appear the employé involved had the general reputation of a bootlegger, much less actual notice of such fact to the owner.

1929In Puckett v. State, 204 Ala. 238 , 85 So. 452 , and Hockstein v. State, 214 Ala. 563 , 108 So. 571 , relied upon by appellant, it did not appear the employé involved had the general reputation of a bootlegger, much less actual notice of such fact to the owner.

1929In Puckett v. State, 204 Ala. 238 , 85 So. 452 , and Hockstein v. State, 214 Ala. 563 , 108 So. 571 , relied upon by appellant, it did not appear the employé involved had the general reputation of a bootlegger, much less actual notice of such fact to the owner.