In re Parte
| Decision Date | 19 April 1881 |
| Citation | 10 Mo.App. 240 |
| Parties | EX PARTE B. M. CHAMBERS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mandamus will not lie to compel the judge of a trial court to grant a change of venue.
APPLICATION for mandamus.
Writ denied.
JOHN M. DIXON, for the petitioner.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the Hon. James J. Lindley, one of the judges of the St. Louis Circuit Court, commanding him to grant change of venue in a certain proceeding wherein Frank J Bowman is plaintiff and the petitioner and others are defendants.
The granting of a change of venue is a judicial act; and the writ does not lie to compel the performance of a particular judicial act. It will lie in some cases to compel an inferior tribunal to proceed; but the writ will not issue to direct a judicial tribunal how it must proceed. The refusal of a change of venue may be erroneous. In such case the party aggrieved has his remedy by appeal or writ of error; and mandamus never issues except where the petitioner has a specific right and no other specific remedy. The State ex rel. v. Lafayette County Court, 41 Mo. 225; The State ex rel. v. Garesché, 65 Mo. 489.
The action of the trial court in refusing a change of venue is constantly reviewed on appeal. The State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; Corpenny v. Sedalia, 57 Mo. 88; Woodson v. Younger, 61 Mo. 395; The State v. Burns, 54 Mo. 274.
Where a change of venue was improperly awarded after verdict, mandamus was granted to compel the court granting the change to proceed and determine the case. Ex parte Cox, 10 Mo. 742. But we are not aware of any instance in which the writ has been granted to compel the trial court to grant a change of venue.
The alternative writ must be denied, and it is so ordered.
All the judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Superior Court of Spokane County
... ... Sexton, ... 24 Cal. 78; People v. McRoberts, 100 Ill. 458; ... State v. Cotton, 33 Neb. 561, 50 N.W. 688; ... People v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 35; People v. Judge ... of Twelfth Dist., 17 Cal. 548; People v. Clerk of ... Court, 22 Colo. 280, 44 P. 506; Ex parte Chambers, 10 ... Mo.App. 240; State v. Clayton, 34 Mo.App. 569. See, ... also, High, Extr. Rem. (4th Ed.) § 172, and 4 Enc. Pl. & ... Prac. 442, 443, 492.' In State ex rel. Wyman, Partridge & ... Company v. Superior Court of Spokane County (just decided) 82 ... P ... ...
-
Fong v. Sapienza
...qualifications. This he has done and this writ does not lie to make him reverse his decision even though it be wrong.’ See also Ex parte Chambers, 10 Mo. App. 240.” The majority opinion in effect abrogates these principles. It purports to do so under the authority of Collector of Customs v.......
-
Winfrey v. Benton
...Ky. 431, 50 S.W. 686; People ex rel. Clark et al. v. McRoberts, 100 Ill. 458; People ex rel. Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34; Ex parte Chambers, 10 Mo. App. 240; Hamilton v. Smart, Judge, 78 Kan. 218, 95 P. 836. ¶5 It follows, therefore, that the petition of plaintiff in error in this court ......
-
Windfrey v. Benton
...Ky. 431, 50 S.W. 686; People ex rel. Clark et al. v. McRoberts, 100 Ill. 458; People ex rel. Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 35; Ex parte Chambers, 10 Mo.App. 240; Hamilton v. Smart, Judge, 78 Kan. 218, 95 P. It follows, therefore, that the petition of plaintiff in error in this court is sustai......