From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitehead v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 6, 1921
206 Ala. 399 (Ala. 1921)

Summary

In Long Bell Co. v. McLendon, 127 Miss. 636, 90 So. 356, 358, it was held that a void assessment on the rolls could not subsequently be inquired into where the property was listed or brought in view of the taxing authorities, and that no back assessment of such property could be made.

Summary of this case from George County Bridge Co. v. Catlett

Opinion

4 Div. 937.

June 30, 1921. Rehearing Denied October 6, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Farmer, Merrill Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.

The court erred in sustaining demurrers to the plea in abatement. Sections 6, 7 and 11, Const. 1901; Acts 1909, p. 305; 96 Ala. 120, 11 So. 424; 179 Ala. 27, 60 So. 908; 16 Ala. App. 197, 76 So. 487.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at life imprisonment. There is no bill of exceptions, the appeal being upon the record only.

But two questions are presented and argued by counsel, one relating to the plea in abatement, and the other to the matter of severance in the trial. These identical questions were considered in Babe Whitehead v. State, 90 So. 351, a companion case to this, and this day decided adversely to the contention of appellant. The writer and Justice Thomas entertained the view that the demurrer to the plea in abatement considered in the Babe Whitehead Case should have been overruled, and dissented from the holding there; but the question, having been determined, is considered conclusive in the instant case. Upon the authority of Babe Whitehead v. State, present term, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Ante, p. 288.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Whitehead v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 6, 1921
206 Ala. 399 (Ala. 1921)

In Long Bell Co. v. McLendon, 127 Miss. 636, 90 So. 356, 358, it was held that a void assessment on the rolls could not subsequently be inquired into where the property was listed or brought in view of the taxing authorities, and that no back assessment of such property could be made.

Summary of this case from George County Bridge Co. v. Catlett
Case details for

Whitehead v. State

Case Details

Full title:WHITEHEAD v. STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Oct 6, 1921

Citations

206 Ala. 399 (Ala. 1921)
90 So. 356

Citing Cases

Gully v. Newman Lbr. Co.

This record, I submit, shows that these lands belonged to appellee on January 1, 1934, and appellee could not…

State Tax Collector v. Miss. Valley Co.

Therefore, there was no issue before the court on which any papers, books or documents mentioned in the…