Ex parte May, 4 Div. 613
Decision Date | 15 June 1950 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 613 |
Parties | Ex parte MAY et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Wm. S. Pritchard and Victor H. Smith, of Birmingham, for applicants.
Richard T. Rives, of Montgomery, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ directed to Honorable Bowen W. Simmons, Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County, requiring him to desist from proceeding further in a matter pending in his court wherein a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ is sought forbidding the members of a sub-committee of the State Democratic Executive Committee to hear and determine a contest of the election of Jack M. Bridges, Neil O. Davis, W. L. Horn, and G. C. Hughes to the State Democratic Executive Committee from the Third Congressional District of Alabama.
The petition filed here makes exhibits thereto the following: (1) the statement of contest filed before the State Democratic Executive Committee as to the election of Neil O. Davis, which the petition alleges is typical of the statements of contest filed against Bridges, Horn and Hughes; (2) the statement filed by the contestees with the sub-committee challenging its jurisdiction to hear and decide the contest; (3) the petition for writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ filed before the Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County by the contestees; (4) the order of said Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County commanding the members of the said sub-committee to desist from proceeding further with the hearing of the contest, or else show cause on July 20, 1950, why a writ of prohibition should not issue restraining and perpetually forbidding each of the members of said committee from proceeding further with the contest.
The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to prevent the executive committees of political parties and the sub-committees thereof from proceeding in election contests, where such committees or sub-committees do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such contests. Such is the effect of Ex parte State ex rel. Bragg, 240 Ala. 80, 197 So. 32.
We hold that the averments of Paragraph 14 of the petition presented to the circuit court were sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction to issue the rule nisi. The averments of Paragraph 14 are to the effect that the statements of contest were not filed by the contestants with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilbert v. Ala. Democratic Party
...197 So. at 34 (exercising jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for an election contest); Ex parte May, 253 Ala. 684, 685, 46 So. 2d 836, 837 (1950) (recognizing circuit court's jurisdiction over challenge to election contest when plaintiff alleged that statement of ......
-
Bridges v. McCorvey, 4 Div. 623
...this judgment that the appeal is prosecuted. Two opinions have heretofore been promulgated in this matter, the first being Exparte May, 253 Ala. 684, 46 So.2d 836, where this court held that paragraph 14 of the petition for writ of prohibition constituted sufficient basis to invoke the juri......
-
Prather v. Ray, 6 Div. 368
...Litigation ensued wherein the jurisdiction of the subcommittee was challenged. The subcommittee's jurisdiction was upheld. Ex parte May, 253 Ala. 684, 46 So.2d 836; Ex parte May, 254 Ala. 180, 47 So.2d 640; Bridges v. McCorvey, 254 Ala. 677, 49 So.2d 546. See Ex parte May, 254 Ala. 626, 49 ......
-
Perloff v. Edington
...time. If the subcommittee lost jurisdiction of the contest, and we hold that it did, a writ of prohibition was proper. In Ex parte May, 253 Ala. 684, 46 So.2d 836, this court 'The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to prevent the executive committee......