Ex parte Wright
Decision Date | 16 June 1932 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 163. |
Parties | EX PARTE WRIGHT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Original petition of Thelma Wright for mandamus to William M. Walker as Judge of the Circuit Court, Jefferson County.
Writ denied.
Appeal from final equity decree and filing of security for costs did not deprive trial court of right to direct process and execution on judgment pending appeal, where no supersedeas bond was given (Code 1923, §§ 6132-6134).
Clark Williams and G. Ernest Jones, both of Birmingham, for petitioner.
John W Altman and Fred G. Koenig, both of Birmingham, for respondent.
The petition was for mandamus to the circuit judge to vacate a decree entered in the court of equity.
It is established that mandamus will not be granted where the petitioner has a remedy by appeal. In Ex parte Schmidt & Smith, 62 Ala. 252, 254, Mr. Chief Justice Stone states the rule that has since obtained in this jurisdiction. It is:
See, also, Ex parte Smith, 168 Ala. 182, 52 So. 895; Ex parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 103 So. 558; Leigh v. State ex rel. O'Bannon, 69 Ala. 261; State of Alabama ex rel. Pinney v. Williams, 69 Ala. 311; Ex parte Apperson, 217 Ala. 176. 115 So. 226; Lovelady v. Copeland, Clerk, 198 Ala. 625, 73 So. 948. And such is the remedy.
The petition for mandamus directing the trial court to require transcription of the oral testimony will not be required until that court is properly and duly invoked to do so. Allen v. Allen, 223 Ala. 223, 135 So. 169; Ex parte Bozeman (Bozeman v. Dillard), 213 Ala. 223, 104 So. 402; Ex parte Jackson, supra.
The record and exhibits, considered as one pleading, show the jurisdiction of the trial court, that the parties were subject thereto, and on the trial the testimony was taken orally in open court, and the court rendered final judgment in said cause. It is thus apparent that there was complete and adequate remedy by appeal as to rendition of that final judgment, and as to the several rulings of the court during the trial of the case.
It is further shown that there was failure to duly move the court for an order requiring the reporter to transcribe and file in the cause the evidence taken orally in open court. This being true, mandamus is not the proper remedy-that is, a proper case for mandamus is not presented.
In Allen v. Allen, 223 Ala. 223, 135 So. 169, 170, this court recently observed, through Mr. Justice Brown, that testimony duly given ore tenus in an equity case as provided by the statute,
The fact that the evidence had not been transcribed when the decree was rendered did not affect the validity of that judgment, nor will that judgment be reviewed and vacated by way of mandamus. Appeal is the appropriate method of review. Mandamus will not be granted for the mere purpose of review. Ex parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 497, 103 So. 558, and authorities collected.
The fact that an appeal was taken from the final decree and perfected by filing security for costs, and a supersedeas bond was not given to preserve the statu quo, did not deprive the trial court of the right to direct the process and execution on the judgment pending the appeal, within the terms of the statute (section 6134, Code; Ex parte Roberts, 17 Ala. App. 538, 85 So. 871)-that is, in a case where a supersedeas bond is authorized to be given and preserve the status (sections 6132-6134, Code).
In 63 A. L. R. 1482, 1483, the following observation is contained in the note:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meadows v. Meadows
...to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it."'" Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860). In other words, ......
-
Ex parte Hartwell
...and other jurisdictions are cited. Ex parte Rowland, 26 Ala. 133; Ex parte Elston, 25 Ala. 72; White v. Nance, 16 Ala. 345; Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 142 So. 672; v. Westinghouse Church, Kerr & Co., 209 Ala. 672, 96 So. 884; Southern Ry. Co. v. Walker, 132 Ala. 62, 31 So. 487; Chicago ......
-
State v. Cobb
...69 Ala. 311, 316; Ex parte Hurn, 92 Ala. 102, 104, 9 So. 515, 13 L.R.A. 120; Ex parte 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. Agr......
-
Ex parte McElroy
... ... It is settled by uniform line of ... authorities that it is a rule of general application that ... mandamus will not be granted for the purpose of review and is ... not available as a substitute for an appeal. Ex parte State ... ex rel. Hain, 217 Ala. 702, 117 So. 418; Ex parte Wright, 225 ... Ala. 220, 142 So. 672; 14 Alabama Digest, Mandamus, pages 58, ... 59, + 4; 38 C.J. 565. With any matter of exception to this ... general rule we are not here concerned, as the present case ... does not come within any such exception. Though the writ ... should have likewise been ... ...