Ex parte Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile, 1 Div. 464

Decision Date09 October 1952
Docket Number1 Div. 464
Citation60 So.2d 684,257 Ala. 663
PartiesEx parte MERCHANTS NAT. BANK OF MOBILE et al.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

J. B. Blackburn, Bay Minette, and McCorvey, Turner, Rogers, Johnstone & Adams, Mobile, for petitioner.

Hubert M. Hall, Bay Minette, for respondent.

FOSTER, Justice.

This is an original petition addressed to this Court for a writ of mandamus to the Judge of the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, commanding him to vacate and set aside an order which he made transferring to the jury docket for trial by jury a certain cause therein pending, wherein petitioners are the plaintiffs and James Morris and Leon Morris are the defendants, whereby the plaintiffs sued at law to recover certain described land.

The facts with respect to the right to have the writ of mandamus issue as prayed for are not disputed.

At the time of the institution of the suit the plaintiffs endorsed on the summons and complaint a demand for trial by jury. The case was tried by the court with a jury, resulting in a judgment. An appeal was taken to this Court and on that appeal the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for another trial. Merchants National Bank v. Morris, 252 Ala. 566, 42 So.2d 240.

After the cause was reversed and remanded, and at a regular jury term of the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, the plaintiffs withdrew their demand for a jury trial in said cause. The defendants, acting by and through their attorneys in open court, consented for said jury trial to be withdrawn. It does not appear that said consent was in writing but an entry was made to that effect by the judge on the trial docket, on the basis of which a minute entry was made in the following language: 'Came the parties by their attorneys and the plaintiffs, with the consent of the defendants, withdrew their demand for a jury trial of this cause. It is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court retransfer said cause from the nonjury docket of this court and continued.' At a later date the defendants made a motion to retransfer said cause from the non-jury docket of said court to the jury docket. This motion was granted by the court and an order was made retransferring said cause from the nonjury to the jury docket.

The purpose of this proceeding is to review the ruling of the trial court in making said transfer to the jury docket as stated above. The first question presented for consideration in that connection is the right of petitioners to have said ruling reviewed by writ of mandamus. It has been the custom of this Court to grant such a mandamus for that purpose with respect to interlocutory orders and judgments of the court as to which an adequate remedy is not available on appeal. This procedure has been made use of in respect to the transfer of causes from the law side to the equity side of the court and vice versa. Code Title 13, sections 149-156; Edge v. Bonner, Ala.Sup., 59 So.2d 683; Ballentine v. Bradley, 236 Ala. 326, 182 So. 399.

It is provided by section 260, Title 7, Code, that all civil actions at law shall be tried and determined by the court without a jury, unless a demand therefor is made as required by its terms. In section 265, Title 7, Code, it is provided that a party demanding a trial by jury shall not have a right to withdraw such demand without the consent of the opposite party. The rights of the parties secured by those statutory provisions are subject to enforcement by mandamus in view of the fact that as a rule there would not be an adequate remedy by appeal from the final judgment. Ex parte, Ansley, 107 Ala. 613, 18 So. 242; Knight v. Farrell & Reynolds, 113 Ala. 258, 20 So. 974; 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, § 93, page 151.

The withdrawal of the damand by the plaintiffs was made in open court and the defendants' counsel in open court consented to the same. We think the right of petitioners to the writ of mandamus as prayed for depends upon the effect of the consent given by defendants' counsel to the withdrawal by plaintiffs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Ex parte Moore
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 31, 2003
    ...of the fact that as a rule there would not be an adequate remedy by appeal from the final judgment." Ex parte Merchants Nat'l Bank of Mobile, 257 Ala. 663, 664, 60 So.2d 684, 685 (1952), citing Ex parte Ansley, 107 Ala. 613, 18 So. 242 (1895); Knight v. Farrell & Reynolds, 113 Ala. 258, 20 ......
  • State v. Kandola (Ex parte Kandola)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 29, 2011
    ...final judgment would not afford adequate relief—this [is] sometimes referred to as an emergency appeal. Ex parte Merchants National Bank of Mobile, 257 Ala. 663, 60 So.2d 684 [ (1952) ]; Ex parte Tucker, 254 Ala. 222, 48 So.2d 24 [ (1950) ]. It has similarly been held that the writ may be e......
  • Woods v. SunTrust Bank
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 16, 2011
    ...by appeal from the final judgment.’ ” Ex parte Moore, 880 So.2d 1131, 1133–34 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Merchants Nat'l Bank of Mobile, 257 Ala. 663, 664, 60 So.2d 684, 685 (1952)) (emphasis added). After the trial court denied its request to enjoin the foreclosure sale and have a jury d......
  • Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1969
    ...from a final judgment would not afford adequate relief--this sometimes referred to as an emergency appeal. Ex parte Merchants National Bank of Mobile, 257 Ala. 663, 60 So.2d 684; Ex parte Tucker, 254 Ala. 222, 48 So.2d It has similarly been held that the writ may be employed to vacate certa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT