Bowen v. Holcombe

87 So. 87, 204 Ala. 549, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 7
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 30, 1919
Docket1 Div. 154.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 87 So. 87 (Bowen v. Holcombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowen v. Holcombe, 87 So. 87, 204 Ala. 549, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 7 (Ala. 1919).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

Appellant sought'to contest the election (not nomination) of the appellee to the office of sheriff of Mobile county, in virtue of' amended Code, § 470 (Act approved April 5, 1911, Gen. Acts, p. 195). The contestee’s demurrer to the appellant’s orignal “statement of- grounds of contest” being sustained, the “statement” was amended, and appellee’s demurrers thereto-were sus *550 tained. Contestant declining to plead further, judgment was rendered for contestee, with costs.

[1] Contests of elections are proceedings of purely statutory creation; and the Legislature may prescribe the jurisdiction, methods and means therefor. Scheuing v. State ex rel., 177 Ala. 162, 164, 59 South. 160, among others.

[2] The exaction of security for costs of contest, set down in Code, § 470, and in its amended form, supra, is a jurisdictional requirement that, if wholly absent, will not allow the court to proceed a “single step.” Hutto v. Walker County, 185 Ala. 505, 510, 64 South. 313, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 372; Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 669, 21 South. 1017; Ex parte Shepherd, 172 Ala. 205, 210, 211, 215, 55 South. 627; Pearson v. Alverson, 160 Ala. 265, 49 South. 756, among others.

[3, 4] An imperfect security for costs may be perfected by amendment. Lowery v. Petree, 175 Ala. 559, 57 South. 818. This transcript to which the clerk of the circuit court attaches the customary certificate of completeness does not show that any security whatever for costs of contest was offered or given in compliance (defective or otherwise) with the law’s jurisdictional exaction in that regard. This .essential to jurisdiction in a special proceeding of this character cannot be assumed or presumed.

[5] As the record stands on reproduction for the purposes of appeal, the court below did not acquire jurisdiction in the premises. Hence, according to the record here, the court was without jurisdiction; and any judgment rendered or order taken will not support an appeal. Singo v. Fritz, 165 Ala. 658, 661, 51 South. 867; Singo v. McGhee, 160 Ala. 245, 252, 49 South. 290.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Washington v. Hill
960 So. 2d 643 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2006)
Ex Parte Willliams
613 So. 2d 1266 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1993)
Dobbins v. City of Anniston
469 So. 2d 583 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1985)
State ex rel. Radcliff v. Lauten
56 So. 2d 106 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1952)
Boozer v. Boozer
16 So. 2d 863 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Groom v. Taylor
178 So. 33 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
State Ex Rel. Garrow v. Grayson
123 So. 573 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Canty v. Sims
109 So. 373 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
State Ex Rel. Besse v. D.C., 4th J.D.
239 P. 452 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1925)
State ex rel. Besse v. District Court of Fourth Judicial Dist.
239 P. 452 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1925)
Garrett v. Cuninghame
100 So. 845 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Wilson v. Matson
194 N.W. 735 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 So. 87, 204 Ala. 549, 1919 Ala. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-holcombe-ala-1919.