Southern Ry. Co. v. Walker
| Decision Date | 13 February 1902 |
| Citation | 132 Ala. 62,31 So. 487 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. WALKER ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Marengo county; Jno. C. Anderson, Judge.
Action by Walker & Minge against the Southern Railway Company. Application by defendant for writ of mandamus directing the clerk of the circuit court to reinstate the cause. From a judgment denying the application, applicant appeals. Affirmed.
Gesner Williams, for appellant.
The appeal in this case is taken from the order of the judge refusing the petition for mandamus. It appears from the record that the appellees Walker & Minge, a partnership recovered a judgment in the justice court against the appellant in an action commenced in that court by summons and complaint, and that the defendant, after judgment and execution issued thereon filed and obtained a common-law writ of certiorari, removing the proceedings into the circuit court of Marengo county that, subsequent to the removal of the proceedings upon the writ of certiorari, the plaintiffs Walker & Minge made a motion in vacation to dismiss their cause of action then pending in the circuit court under the certiorari proceedings; and that the clerk of said court, acting on said motion, entered an order upon the docket granting the same and dismissing the suit. All this occurred prior to the spring term, 1900, of the circuit court or Marengo county. At the fall term, 1900, of said court, the appellant, the Southern Railway Company, defendant in said action, made a motion in said court to annul and set aside the order of the clerk of said court dismissing said cause, and to require said clerk to reinstate said cause upon the docket in said court. It appears further from the record that said motion was heard and considered by said circuit court, and the same was denied. Thereupon the appellant, the Southern Railway Company, made application by petition in writing to the Honorable John C. Anderson, judge of said circuit court, for a writ of mandamus directing the clerk of said circuit court to reinstate said cause upon the docket in said court, which application was refused by said John C. Anderson, circuit judge; and it is from this order refusing and denying the petition that the present appeal is prosecuted.
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and, as a general rule, can only be resorted to in the absence of other legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Jackson
... ... It has ... been declared in this jurisdiction that mandamus will not be ... granted for the mere purpose of a review. Southern Ry ... Co. v. Walker, 132 Ala. 62, 31 So. 487; Ingram v ... Alabama Power Co., 201 Ala. 13, 75 So. 304; Johnson ... v. Westinghouse, etc., Co., ... ...
-
Ex parte Hartwell
... ... 345; Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 142 So. 672; Johnson ... v. Westinghouse Church, Kerr & Co., 209 Ala. 672, 96 So ... 884; Southern Ry. Co. v. Walker, 132 Ala. 62, 31 So ... 487; Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Union Rolling Mill Co., ... 109 U.S. 702, 3 S.Ct. 594, 27 L.Ed. 1081; Ex ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Sweeney v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
...be used on extraordinary occasions. Ex parte Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 131 U. S. clxxx, Append., 26 L. Ed. 561. See, also, So. Ry. Co. v. Walker, 132 Ala. 62, 31 South. 487. We concede that, in a proper case, mandamus will lie to compel a district court to proceed and try a cause when it re......
-
Johnson v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co.
...case before seeking relief from it, and review of it in this case. 26 Cyc. p. 177, E, and Alabama authorities there cited; Southern Ry. Co. v. Walker, 132 Ala. 62, h/n. 2, So. 487; Ex parte South & North R. R. Co., 65 Ala. 599; Ex parte Elston, 25 Ala. 72; First Nat. Bk. v. Cheney, 120 Ala.......