State v. Fullerton
| Decision Date | 23 September 1919 |
| Docket Number | 10696. |
| Citation | 183 P. 979,76 Okla. 35,1919 OK 265 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. WARNER et al. v. FULLERTON, District Judge. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Courts should scrupulously maintain the right of every litigant to an impartial and disinterested tribunal for determination of his rights; and the judges presiding over such courts should be unbiased, impartial, and disinterested in the subject-matter in litigation, and all doubt or suspicion to the contrary must be jealously guarded against, and, if possible, eliminated, if we are to maintain and give full force and effect to the high ideals and salutary safeguards written in the organic law of the state. Section 6, art. 2 Const.
The signing of a statement by respondent, before he became district judge, which was, in effect, a criticism of the judgment rendered by the then district judge in the trial of the matter to be retried before respondent, and the expression of an opinion to the effect that the finding of facts made by the court against one of the parties, who is the principal witness for defendants, was untrue, is sufficient to disqualify respondent to sit and act as judge in such suit.
Where a district judge is disqualified to hear and determine a cause pending before him, he should certify his disqualification and upon refusal to do so, when requested in the manner provided by law, mandamus will lie.
Application by the State, on the relation of Minnie Newman Warner and another, for writ of mandamus to disqualify Hon. S. C Fullerton, District Judge, of Ottawa County, from proceeding with the trial of a cause brought by plaintiffs to cancel a deed to certain mining land in Ottawa county. Application granted.
227k49(2) Statements and Expressions of Opinion by Judge.
A signed statement by respondent, before he became district judge, criticizing judgment of the then district judge in the trial of the matter to be retried before respondent, and his expressed opinion that court's finding of facts against a party who was to be principal witness for defendants was untrue, disqualified him to act as judge in such suit.
Where a district judge is disqualified to hear and determine a cause pending before him, and refuses to certify his disqualification when requested in the manner provided by law, mandamus will lie.
Bayard T. Hainer, of Miami, Paul A. Ewert, of Joplin, Mo., and Dyke Ballinger, of Miami, for plaintiffs.
Ray McNaughton, of Miami, for respondent.
A trial of this cause was had before Hon. George C. Crump, sitting as judge of the district court of Ottawa county, but the judgment was set aside and a new trial granted. In announcing judgment, Judge Crump stated the evidence showed the deed to the land in controversy had been procured fraudulently from plaintiffs by James F. Robinson, one of the defendants and a principal witness. Respondent, who was at the time engaged in the practice of law at Miami, signed a statement, which was, in effect, a criticism of the finding of the district judge, and expressing the opinion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial