Ex parte Brown
| Citation | 91 So. 306,206 Ala. 528 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1921 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 502. |
| Parties | EX PARTE BROWN. v. BROWN. STATE |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition by John Brown for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the Court of Appeals (89 So. 862) in reversing an order of the circuit court of Jefferson county awarding a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to the State Warden General to produce the petitioner before the circuit court to testify as a witness in a civil action by petitioner. Writ denied.
Black & Harris, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Petition for writ of certiorari to review the action of the Court of Appeals in reversing the order of the circuit court of Jefferson county awarding habeas corpus ad testificandum to require the State Warden General to produce John Brown (petitioner), a life-term convict, before the circuit court to testify as a witness in said Brown's civil action for damages for personal injuries against the Montevallo Mining Company, in the custody and control of which corporation said life-term convict was when injured.
The Court of Appeals decided, and we think correctly, that the statutory provisions (particularly Code, § 6559)-cited in that opinion-operated long ago to change and entirely supersede the common-law writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum (a manifestation of inherent judicial power at common law), as the means and method for requiring the production of incarcerated persons for examination as witnesses in civil causes. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is satisfying in its treatment of the single question presented and there decided.
Whether in view of the provisions of Code, § 7637, pronouncing life-term convicts "civilly dead" except for the purpose of seasonably making a will, a life-term convict may sue in a civil action; and, if so, whether as a party plaintiff, not simply as a witness, he has a right to be present at the trial of his civil action, are questions not necessary to this review, the petition being designed alone to secure the presence in the circuit court of petitioner as a witness, not as a party plaintiff. To these not considered but possible questions very much of the argument for petitioner has reference.
The writ is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Woods
...view of other means for securing testimony of imprisoned persons, at least where the witness is other than a party. See Ex parte Brown, 206 Ala. 528, 91 So. 306 (1921), aff'g, State v. Brown, 18 Ala. App. 205, 89 So. 862 (1921). The method for obtaining such testimony in the state courts ha......
-
Scott v. Parker
...... 1923, operating a change as to common-law writ of habeas. corpus ad testificandum. Ex parte Brown, 206 Ala. 528, 91 So. 306; State ex rel. Reese v. Montevallo Mining Co.,. 18 Ala.App. 697, 92 So. 926; Turner v. State, 19. Ala.App. 698, 98 ......
-
Whitehead v. Bi-Petro Marketing, Inc., BI-PETRO
...Alabama Code (Recomp. 1958) which in turn was superseded by Rules 26 and 43 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ex parte Brown, 206 Ala. 528, 91 So. 306 (1921) and Appendix II, Statutes and Rules Superseded, ARCP. Appellant's proper remedy was to take his own testimony upon oral ex......
-
Pirkle v. State, 6 Div. 83.
...... appellant's contention. And this court's decision was. fully approved by our Supreme Court. See State v. Brown, 18 Ala.App. 205, 89 So. 862, and Ex parte. Brown (State v. Brown) 206 Ala. 528, 91 So. 306. [18 So.2d 695.] . . As. Presiding Judge ......