Jeter v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 138 |
| Citation | 218 Ala. 12,117 So. 460 |
| Parties | JETER, Clerk, v. STATE ex rel. CARLISLE, Constable, |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.
Petition by the State, on the relation of J.D. Carlisle, as Constable of Precinct 37, Jefferson County, for mandamus to Mark L Jeter, as Clerk of the Third Division of the Municipal Court of Birmingham. From a judgment awarding the writ, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Ernest Matthews and Thos. J. Judge, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
T.A Murphree and Marvin Woodall, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
J.D Carlisle is the duly elected and qualified constable for precinct 37 in Jefferson county, Ala. Mark L. Jeter is clerk of the Third division of the municipal court of Birmingham Ala.
This mandamus proceeding was brought by the constable against said Jeter as such clerk to require the delivery to said constable of all processes issuing out of the Third division of the municipal court, which are to be served in said precinct 37.
There was a demurrer interposed to the petition which was overruled, and, respondent declining to plead further, judgment was entered for petitioner, from which respondent prosecutes this appeal.
The averments of the petition are therefore undisputed, and, so far as here pertinent, to the following effect: Petitioner as duly elected and qualified constable of said precinct 37 demanded of respondent as such clerk of the Third division of the municipal court that he as such clerk "turn over to petitioner all processes which should be issued out of said division of said court, and which should be served in precinct 37 of Jefferson county, as under the law *** petitioner was entitled to have for service in his said precinct, but that the said respondent has wrongfully refused and still wrongfully refuses to give to petitioner all such processes, or any substantial amount thereof, and has given notice to petitioner that it is not his intention to conform to petitioner's said demand, for the reason that the law does not require him to do so"; that said clerk delivers for service practically all of such processes to another constable other than precinct 37, and that, by the wrongful action on the part of respondent, petitioner is practically excluded from operation in said court as the constable of precinct 37; that the municipal court of Birmingham was created by Local Act approved July 12, 1915 (Local Acts 1915, p. 231), and that pertinent provisions of sections 7 and 8 of said act read as follows:
It is noted that, under the provisions of section 8, "each constable shall have the right to demand any process issuing out of said court to be served in the precinct for which he was elected." We think it very clear that the word "any," as used in the connection above noted in the quoted provision of section 8 is to be construed in its "broad distributive sense," and has the same meaning as "all"; the legislative intent being to give to the constable of the named precincts the right to demand for service all processes issuing out of said court to be served in his respective precincts. 3 Corpus Juris, 232, and authorities cited in note 33.
The delivery by the clerk to the constable of such processes for service in his precinct is a public ministerial duty ( Stewart v. Wilson Printing Co., 210 Ala. 624, 99 So. 92), and that petitioner had the clear legal right thereto upon demand sufficiently appears from the above-quoted language of section 8 of the Local Act, and indeed his right thereto is not here questioned or denied by counsel.
The argument for a reversal of the judgment rendered is rested solely upon the generally recognized doctrine that the "ordinary office of the writ of mandamus is to coerce the performance of single acts of specific and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, ex rel. Abernathy v. City of Sheffield
...duty, not the performance of a series of continuous acts over which the court cannot furnish superintendence. Jeter v. State ex rel. Carlisle, 218 Ala. 12, 117 So. 460 (1928); State ex rel. Denson v. Miller, 204 Ala. 234, 85 So. 700 Likewise, injunctive relief is not proper to enforce Act N......
-
Woods v. Wood
...right. The supervision of a continuous course of official conduct, speaking broadly, is not within the remedy by mandamus. But in Jeter v. State, supra, this court did not refuse the on such ground. In view of constitutional and statutory duty of higher courts to supervise by appropriate re......
-
Ingram, In re
...supervision of a continuous course of official conduct, speaking broadly, is not within the remedy by mandamus. "But in Jeter v. State, supra (218 Ala. 12, 117 So. 460), this court did not refuse the remedy on such ground. In view of constitutional and statutory duty of higher courts to sup......
- Bolen Bros. v. Miller