Washington v. Waldrop

• Decision Date: 12 February 1920
• Docket Number: 7,6 Div. 6
• Parties: WASHINGTON v. WALDROP, Clerk.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

85 So. 383

204 Ala. 109

WASHINGTON v. WALDROP, Clerk.

6 Div. 6, 7

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 12, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.

Petition for mandamus by Isaiah Washington, as administrator, to compel William J. Waldrop, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, to transfer a cause, wherein petitioner was plaintiff, to the Bessemer division. From an order denying the petition, petitioner appeals, filing an original petition for mandamus to Judge Dan A. Greene to compel him to rescind an order annulling a former order transferring the cause. Writ denied.

W.A Denson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

SAYRE J.

It is made to appear that the case of Isaiah Washington, as administrator of the estate of Emma Washington, deceased versus Birmingham Southern Railroad Company, a corporation was pending on the docket of the circuit court of Jefferson county (Tenth circuit) held at Birmingham, the county seat, on November 5, 1919, when Hon. Lum Duke, one of the judges of the Fifth circuit, then by order of the Chief Justice of this court presiding in the circuit court at Birmingham, made an order transferring the said cause to the Bessemer division of said court, which sits at Bessemer, in said county. An application by Washington to the presiding judge of the Tenth circuit for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, clerk of the circuit court at Birmingham, to transfer the cause to the circuit court at Bessemer, was denied, after which Washington prosecuted this appeal, and at the same time petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to the clerk.

It is further made to appear that the defendant clerk, in refusing to transfer the cause to Bessemer, is acting under the direction of the presiding judge of the Tenth judicial circuit, and that said judge has vacated the order of Judge Duke on the ground that such order was without authority of law. The formal entry of the order made by the presiding judge was not noted upon the docket nor entered upon the minutes of the court at Birmingham, until after appellant had taken his appeal and applied to this court for a writ of mandamus; but, in our view of the case, this is of no consequence.

It is to be inferred that the parties and the trial judges have acted upon the assumption that the venue of appellant's action against the railroad company was affected by the second section of the act of August 18, 1919, "To...