Ex parte Slade
| Citation | 382 So.2d 1127 |
| Parties | Ex parte V. C. Gissendanner SLADE. In re V. C. GISSENDANNER v. Thomas SLADE et al. 79-374. |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1980 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
James A. Ward, III, Abbeville, for petitioner.
Huey D. McInish, Dothan, for respondent.
Petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Honorable Jerry M. White, Judge of the Circuit Court of Henry County. The writ is denied.
To place the matter in its proper perspective the facts of this case must refer to another case which had been actuated by the death of one Simon L. Slade. At the time when Mr. Slade's body was in the custody of Holman Funeral Home, Abbeville, Henry County, one T. R. Slade, alleging that he and another brother were the nearest of kin, petitioned the Henry County Circuit Court to have the body released to him for a proper burial. That petition further alleged that the body had been placed with the funeral home by V. C. Gissendanner, the guardian of the deceased, and would not be released by the funeral home without a court order. Accompanying the petition was the affidavit of T. R. Slade, who gave his residence as Talbotton, Georgia, and deposed the relationship referred to above. Based upon that petition and affidavit the trial court, Judge White, entered an order directing the funeral home to release the body of Simon L. Slade to T. R. Slade.
On that same day V. C. Gissendanner filed in the Circuit Court of Henry County her petition for injunctive relief against Thomas Slade (who appears to be the same person as T. R. Slade). This petition alleged that Thomas Slade, a resident of Talbotton, Georgia, had threatened to remove the body of Simon L. Slade out of Alabama and bury it in Georgia, and that the petitioner, because she was guardian of his estate and his common law wife, was entitled to custody of the body. Allegations of irreparable injury and the absence of a remedy at law were made, followed by a prayer for a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction against removal of the remains from Henry County. The petition was accompanied by several affidavits pertaining to the cohabitation of Simon L. Slade during his lifetime with Virginia C. Gissendanner, stating that they represented themselves "as being common law married by openly assuming mutual duties and obligations with and to each other and to the exclusion of all others." Bond for costs was posted, and the trial court of Henry County, through the Honorable J. Ronald Storey, Circuit Judge, granted the temporary restraining order.
On the next day, February 22, 1980, this petition for a writ of mandamus to Judge White was filed by V. C. Gissendanner. It referred to the injunction suit described above, alleged the petitioner's status as common law wife of Simon L. Slade, and averred that she was entitled to the custody of his body. Then it stated that:
(S)imultaneously with the filing of the aforementioned cause, the defendant, Thomas Slade, filed a petition entitled EXPARTE (sic): S. L. (T. R.?) Slade, and therein sought and obtained from the Circuit Court an order directing that the body of S. L. Slade be removed to the State of Georgia.
That by virtue of the Circuit Court's order directing the body of S. L. Slade to be transported to Georgia, the Circuit Court has abused its discretion and failed to carry forth its duties as required by law which give the spouse of the deceased the right to possession of the body of the deceased upon due assertion thereof.
These allegations were followed by others classifying such action as arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust, depriving the petitioner of her opportunity "to have said action tried upon the merits."
The answer of the respondent, Judge White, stated that his ex parte order issued on behalf of T. R. Slade was entered before the petition of V. C. Gissendanner was filed and before any temporary restraining order had been granted. He denied any knowledge of a common law wife of S. L. Slade, except the presence of affidavits attached to the petition for the writ of mandamus. He also denied directing that the body of S. L. Slade be removed to Georgia.
In a reply to this answer, this petitioner, Gissendanner, conceded that the two separate proceedings were not filed simultaneously, but insisted that, nevertheless, the petitioner was denied her legal right to her deceased husband's body without notice or hearing because the ex parte order of Judge White was made by him when, as she charged, he knew that she claimed possession of the body.
It appears that the petitioner in this mandamus proceeding is basing her entitlement on two grounds: (1) that she was found to be the common law wife of S. L. Slade by the Probate Court of Henry County in December, 1979, and (2) that when he issued the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. A-1 Exterminating Co. (Ex parte Wright)
... ... Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So.2d 889, 890 (Ala.1991) ; see also, Martin v. Loeb & Co., 349 So.2d 9 (Ala.1977) ; Ex parte Slade, 382 So.2d 1127 (Ala.1980) [overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Creel, 719 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998) ]; Ex parte Houston County, 435 So.2d 1268 (Ala.1983) ; Ex parte Johnson, 638 So.2d 772 (Ala.1994). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will lie to compel the exercise of discretion, but ... ...
-
Ex parte Government Employees Ins. Co.
... ... See also, Martin v. Loeb & Co., 349 So.2d 9 (Ala.1977) ; Ex parte Slade, 382 So.2d 1127 (Ala.1980) (overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Creel, 719 So.2d 783 (Ala.1998) ); Ex parte Houston County, 435 So.2d 1268 (Ala.1983) ; Ex parte Johnson, 638 So.2d 772 (Ala.1994) ... "Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will lie to compel the exercise of discretion, but ... ...
-
Ex parte British Steel Corp.
... ... Heitner and Toro. A different result, necessarily, must obtain ... A clear legal right, sought to be enforced, is one of the elements required for the granting of a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 397 So.2d 98 (Ala.1981); Ex parte Slade, 382 So.2d 1127 (Ala.1980); Martin v. Loeb & Company, 349 So.2d 9 (Ala.1977). BSC cannot show a clear legal right which it seeks to enforce. Accordingly, we deny the writ and affirm the judgment of the trial court ... Finally, we note that in reaching our decision, we have ... ...
-
R.E. Grills, Inc. v. Davison
... ... Rule 41 committee comments, Ala.R.Civ.P.; Ex parte Hartford Ins. Co., 394 So.2d 933, 935 (Ala.1981); Sundance Marina, Inc. v. Reach, 567 So.2d 1322, 1325 (Ala.1990) ... Rule 60(b) ... Slade, 382 So.2d 1127, 1129 (Ala.1980). The trial court must have abused its discretion and exercised it in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Ex parte ... ...