Ex parte Taylor
| Decision Date | 02 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 10. |
| Citation | 181 So. 760,236 Ala. 219 |
| Parties | EX PARTE TAYLOR. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition of R. V. Taylor for mandamus to J. Russell McElroy sitting as Judge of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, to compel the judge to grant the petitioner's motion to make certain orders in an election contest.
Writ denied.
Smith & Johnston, of Mobile, for petitioner.
Harsh Harsh & Hare, of Birmingham, for respondent.
Petition filed in this Court for writ of mandamus to Judge J. Russell McElroy, sitting as a Judge of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, requiring him, in a certain cause pending in said court, wherein Harry T. Hartwell is contestant and the petitioner is contestee, to enter an order upon the minutes of said court granting two certain motions (Nos. 1 and 2) filed by petitioner on March 19, 1938; and further requiring the said Judge to set aside an order made by him on March 19, 1938, overruling said motions, and also ordering and directing said Judge to strike from the amended statement of contest "certain matters, things and allegations" specified in said motions.
In short the petition seeks mandamus from this Court, requiring the respondent Judge to grant the petitioner's motion to strike certain grounds of contest added by way of amendment to the statement of contest filed by Hartwell against the petitioner. These new or additional grounds of contest relate to that stage of the election which was held on September 13, 1937, and which we have heretofore held was the first stage of the election to select a commissioner for the City of Mobile. Groom v. Taylor, Ala. Sup., 178 So. 33. The new or additional grounds were filed more than thirty days after the first stage of the election had been held, but within twenty days after the result was declared in the second stage of the said election.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy which will only be granted when there is a clear specific legal right shown, for the enforcement of which there is no other adequate remedy. Ex parte Smith, 228 Ala. 232, 153 So. 152; Brody v. Armstrong, 205 Ala. 263, 87 So. 798; Poyner v. Whiddon, 234 Ala. 168, 174 So. 507.
The general rule is that mandamus will not lie when there is a remedy by appeal. This rule has prevailed in this state since the decision in the case of State ex rel. Walker's Heirs v. Judge of Orphans' Court, 15 Ala. 740. Of course like other general rules, the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Spears
...appeal, should be determined by an appellate court on petition for a writ of mandamus, in advance of a final judgment. Ex parte Taylor, 236 Ala. 219, 181 So. 760 (1938). In Ex parte Nice, 407 So.2d 874 (Ala.1981), this Court indicated that only the rarest of circumstances merits an interven......
-
State v. Kandola (Ex parte Kandola)
...]; Ex parte Jones, 246 Ala. 433, 20 So.2d 859 [ (1945) ]; Koonce v. Arnold, 244 Ala. 513, 14 So.2d 512 [ (1943) ]; Ex parte Taylor, 236 Ala. 219, 181 So. 760 [ (1938) ]; State ex rel. Walker's Heirs v. Judge of Orphans' Court of Macon, 15 Ala. 740 [ (1849) ]. Mandamus will not be granted fo......
-
EX PARTE STATE
...appeal, should be determined by an appellate court on petition for a writ of mandamus, in advance of a final judgment. Ex parte Taylor, 236 Ala. 219, 181 So. 760 (1938). In Ex parte Nice, 407 So.2d 874 (Ala.1981), this Court indicated that only the rarest of circumstances merits an interven......
-
State v. Cobb
...Smith, 168 Ala. 179, 52 So. 895; Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 142 So. 672; Ex parte Moore, 231 Ala. 209, 164 So. 210; Ex parte Taylor, 236 Ala. 219, 181 So. 760; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Agricola Furnace Co.,236 Ala. 535, 538, 183 So. 677; Ex parte Hartwell, 238 Ala. 62, 188 ......