Hines v. Salter
| Decision Date | 23 January 1908 |
| Citation | 154 Ala. 248,45 So. 587 |
| Parties | HINES v. SALTER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. C. Richardson, Judge.
Mandamus by James A. Hines to compel M. B. Salter, as county treasurer, to pay a county warrant. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Hamillton & Crumpton, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court denying an application by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to the county treasurer to compel him to pay the amount due the petitioner for mileage and attendance as a special juror. The treasurer was willing to pay the amount claimed for mileage, but refused to pay for the day's attendance, on the ground that said petitioner was not sworn as a special juror.
According to sections 4580 and 4581, Cr. Code 1896, regular jurors are entitled, besides mileage, to $2 for each day's service, and special jurors are entitled to the "same compensation for their attendance." The clerk certified that the juror had traveled so many miles, and "has attended as a special juror the present term of the court one day." While it is true that the party is entitled to his per diem (Chitty v. Tisdale, 45 So. 587), yet, as the failure of the treasurer to pay the warrant is a breach of his official bond, and there is an adequate remedy by suit against him and his sureties, the court below cannot be placed in error for refusing to grant the mandamus. Arrington v. Van Houton et al., 44 Ala. 284; Briggs v. Coleman, 51 Ala. 561; Speed et al. v. Cocke, Adm'r, 57 Ala. 221.
The judgment of the court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weakley v. Henry
... ... 159; Brown, Treas., v ... Gay-Padgett, 186 Ala. 561, 65 So. 333; Norwood v ... Goldsmith, 162 Ala. 171. 50 So. 394; Hines v ... Salter, 154 Ala. 248, 45 So. 587; Arrington v. Van ... Houton, 44 Ala. 284. Claims that are a fixed charge by ... law against the ... ...
-
Norwood v. Goldsmith
...Wyker v. Francis, it appears clear to the writer that State ex rel. Norwood v. Goldsmith, County Treasurer, 50 So. 394, and Hines v. Salter, 154 Ala. 248, 45 So. 587, are only in conflict with the opinion on this appeal, but also are unsound and should be overruled. It was ruled in the form......
-
Brown v. Gay-Padgett Hardware Co.
...§ 930. Mandamus to compel him to pay is not an appropriate remedy. Arrington v. Van Houton, 44 Ala. 284." In the case of Hines v. Salter, 154 Ala. 248, 45 So. 587, the same doctrine was confirmed, and the former cases were cited and reaffirmed. In the later case of Norwood v. Goldsmith, 162......
-
Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird
...provided a summary and adequate remedy against the county treasurer and his bondsmen. Arrington v. Van Houton, 44 Ala. 284; Hines v. Salter, 154 Ala. 248, 45 So. 587; Norwood v. Goldsmith, 162 Ala. 171, 50 So. Brown v. Gay-Padgett Co., 186 Ala. 561, 65 So. 333. The rule announced in the abo......