Ex parte State ex rel. Brittain, 7 Div. 552.
Decision Date | 26 January 1939 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 552. |
Parties | EX PARTE STATE EX REL. BRITTAIN ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition of the State on the relation of Mattie and O. H. Brittain for mandamus to Lamar Field, as judge of the circuit court Calhoun county, to require respondent to allow additional evidence to be offered after submission of cause.
Writ denied.
Merrill Jones & Merrill, of Anniston, for respondent.
Petition for mandamus to Hon. Lamar Field, Judge of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, to require "the Circuit Court and the Judge thereof, to set aside and vacate the order and judgment of January 7, 1939; and to allow petitioners to present for consideration of the court the evidence as offered and referred to in their petition of January 6, 1939, as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes stated in their said petition." In short, the relators seek by their petition here exhibited to require the court and the judge thereof to allow them to offer additional evidence in a certain cause after a submission for final decree.
It appears from the petition here filed that the relators, Mattie Brittain and O. H. Brittain, husband and wife, had filed a bill in equity to enjoin a pending foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the complainants to E. C. Anderson, deceased; that the executor of the will of said Anderson had filed an answer to said bill, and this answer was made a cross bill, and prayed for the foreclosure of the mortgage; that this cross bill was later amended and prayed for the reformation of the mortgage, as to the description of the property, and for subrogation.
The hearing on the bill and cross bill was set for January 3, 1939.
The testimony was given ore tenus, and the cause was argued by counsel for complainants and respondents on January 4, 1939, and duly submitted on pleading and proof for final decree on said day.
The respondent Judge, waiving the issuance of rule nisi, has filed in this court his answer to the petition of relators for mandamus, and this answer has not been controverted in any respect by the relators.
We excerpt the following from the answer of Judge Field, paragraphs 2 and 5:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Inland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hightower
...after the cause was submitted for decree. In connection with offering additional evidence after submission, see Ex parte State ex rel. Brittain, 237 Ala. 164, 186 So. 148. We have not given any weight to this exhibit which was not necessary to prove complainant's right to relief. If it were......
-
Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Henderson, Black & Merrill Co.
... ... HENDERSON, BLACK & MERRILL CO. et al. 4 Div". 451.Supreme Court of AlabamaNov. 10, 1949 ... \xC2" ... On May ... 7, 1927, two days before the mortgage last above ... In ... Corinth State Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Florence, ... 217 ... Hanlon, 197 Ala. 455, 73 So. 20; ... Ex parte State ex rel. Brittain et al., 237 Ala. 154, 186 ... ...
-
Mooradian v. Canal Ins. Co.
... ... CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY ... 4 Div. 24 ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... March 23, ... , pursuant to Declaratory Judgments Act, Title 7, § 156 et seq., as to complainant's liability ... further finds that no * * * statute of the State of Alabama extends coverage under this policy of ... Ex parte State ex ... rel. Brittain et al., 237 Ala ... ...
-
Murphree v. Smith
...court and, there being no evidence of abuse, will not be reviewed. Howard v. Cooke, 238 Ala. 317, 191 So. 341; Ex parte State ex rel. Brittain, 237 Ala. 164, 186 So. 148. Assignment of error fifteen (15) complains of the trial court's ruling that the appellants were guilty of laches. We con......