State ex rel. Sneed v. Hall
Decision Date | 30 September 1866 |
Citation | 43 Tenn. 255 |
Parties | The State, on the relation of Wm. H. Sneed, v. E. T. Hall, et als. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM KNOX.
At the June Term, 1866, of the Circuit Court for Knox, the motion of the relator to set aside a judgment rendered against him at a former term, upon an attachment, was disallowed. The relator, by his counsel, appealed. Judge E. T. HALL, presiding, refused to sign the bill of exceptions; and a petition for a mandamus is filed in this Court, to compel the Circuit Judge to sign the bill of exceptions, or show cause why he should not.
D. P. JENKINS, for the Relator.
T. A. R. NELSON, for Hall and others.
The record in the case of W. H. Sneed, plaintiff in error, against W. G. Brownlow, having been filed in this Court, by an appeal taken in the nature of a writ of error, from the Circuit Court of Knox, the relator, upon petition sworn to and supported by the affidavit of his counsel, moved for a mandamus against the Honorable Elijah T. Hall, Judge, holding the Circuit Court for the County of Knox, to command him to sign, seal and make part of the record, the bill of exceptions presented to him on the trial of said cause, as set forth in the petition.
The facts necessary to be stated, as appears in the petition at the February Term, 1865, of the Circuit Court of Knox County, are, a judgment was rendered against the relator for twenty-five thousand dollars, in favor of W. G. Brownlow; in which suit he was attached by his property, to answer. The suit was for wrongs and injustice inflicted by the relator on W. G. Brownlow, the defendant. He avows that he had no notice of the pendency of the suit; that he was not legally liable; that he had never injured or harmed Brownlow, and was not guilty of any trespass against him; that if he had had notice, he could have interposed a complete defense to the action.
On the 15th day of February, 1866, during the session of the Court, through his counsel, he caused to be entered a motion to set aside the judgment, and plead to the declaration. At a subsequent day of the same term, (on the 17th day of February,) another motion was made in said cause, similar in purport, to set aside the judgment rendered against him. These motions were continued, from the press of business in the Court, until the June Term, 1866, and after argument of the counsel, it was overruled. At a subsequent day of the term, his counsel proposed to take up the second motion, and asked to be heard, and offered to the Court the petition signed by the relator, and affidavits of different parties, which he had present, and which he offered to read to the Court, showing good cause for setting aside the verdict and judgment, and presented his pleas.
The Hon. E. T. Hall declined to hear the petition and affidavits read, or argument, and overruled the motion; to which action of the Court, exceptions were taken.
On the 29th of June, 1866, during the term, Judge Hall presiding, he called up the cause again, and prayed an appeal to the next term of the Supreme Court, and gave a good and sufficient bond, and the appeal was granted. At the same time he tendered to the Judge his bill of exceptions, properly drawn up, stating the facts of the case, and requested him to sign, seal, and make them a part of the record, which His Honor, Elijah T. Hall, refused, who declared that he would sign no bill of exceptions in the case. The record is here by appeal, and he swears he can not try his cause upon its merits without the benefit of said papers, and he has no means of procuring the same; he, therefore, prays a mandamus against the said E. T. Hall, either alternative or peremptory, to compel him to sign the bill of exceptions, to be made a part of the record in his cause now pending in this Court.
The petition was supported by the affidavits of the counsel of the relator, who prove substantially the facts of the petitioner.
The original petition, with the affidavits and bill of exceptions drawn out, are made a part of the petition. They are set forth in the bill of exceptions: First, the notice to Wm. G. Brownlow, of the application to be made. Second, the original petition of the relator, which states that he was not present, nor in the country, when Brownlow was arrested; and in consequence of the disturbed state of the country, could not sooner make his defense; the affidavits of Thos. W. Holtsinger, the proprietor of the Spottswood House, Richmond, Virginia, which states, that the relator was in Richmond, Virginia, during the months of November and December, 1861; also, the affidavit of J. C. Ramsey, who states he caused the arrest of W. G. Brownlow; the commission of George W. Brown, formerly Judge of the Knoxville District. All of which he prayed to be made a part of the bill of exceptions, and which are presented with the affidavit of the counsel of the relator.
Two questions are presented for our consideration:
1st. Has this Court, under its organization and constitutional restrictions, being an appellate Court, the right to award the writ of mandamus?
2d. If this Court has the right, do the facts presented in this petition make such a case as would authorize the issuance of an alternate mandamus?
1. This is the first application, so far as we have been able to learn from the reports of the decisions in this Court, in the judicial history of the State, of an application to this Court to award a mandamus against a Circuit Judge, to compel him to appear and show cause why he should not sign a bill of exceptions taken in the trial of a cause before him.
It is a question of great importance to the citizens. If this Court has not the jurisdiction to grant the writ, there should be some legislative action; for without it, the citizens or suitors would be without remedy, as we have no statute authorizing a mandamus against a Circuit Judge, in such cases. Section 2968 of the Code, provides: “The facts of the case being fairly stated in the bill of exceptions, the Judge shall sign the same, which, thereupon, becomes a part of the record of the cause.”
A mandamus is defined to be, by the common law writers of England, “a summons, issuing in the King's name, from the Court of King's Bench, and directed to any person, corporation, or inferior court of Jurisdiction, within the King's dominions, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which pertains to their office and duty, and which the Court of King's Bench has previously determined, or at least supposes, to be consonant to right and justice.” Blackstone adds: “It issues to the Judges of any inferior Court, commanding them to do justice according to the powers of their office, whenever the same is delayed:” 3 Blackstone's Commentaries, 110; 5 Pet., 191. Chief Justice Marshall, in the last case referred to, says: This Supreme Court was established by the Constitution, in 1834, and it is provided, in the Constitution, “It shall possess such appellate and other jurisdiction, as is now conferred by law, on the Supreme Court, under such restrictions and regulations as may, from time to time, be prescribed by law.” Previous to the formation of this Court by the Constitution, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pruitt v. Talentino
...bill of exceptions; but he will not be compelled to sign an imperfect one.' McCallen v. Sterling (1833) 13 Tenn. 223; State ex rel. Sneed v. Hall (1866) 43 Tenn. 255; Mallon v. Tucker Mfg. Co. (1881) 75 Tenn. The fifth assignment is, accordingly, overruled. As for the eighth assignment, the......
-
Green v. State
...is to apply to this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel his signature. Miller v. Koger, 28 Tenn. 231, 236; State ex rel. v. Hall, 43 Tenn. 255; Caruthers History of a Lawsuit, 3rd Edition, section When the plaintiff in error has been deprived of the right to an appeal wit......
-
Green v. State
...is to apply to this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel his signature. Miller v. Koger, 28 Tenn. 231, 236; State ex rel. v. Hall, 43 Tenn. 255; Caruthers History of a Lawsuit, 3rd Edition, section When the plaintiff in error has been deprived of the right to an appeal wit......
- Roddy v. Bacon