Cantrell v. Golden

120 Tenn. 204
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 120 Tenn. 204 (Cantrell v. Golden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cantrell v. Golden, 120 Tenn. 204 (Tenn. 1907).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Neil

delivered tbe opinion of the Court.

This is an application for mwncLamus to compel the circuit judge to sign a bill of exceptions, so as to make it state that the petitioner had claimed a jury in the court below. It appears from the petition that a bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge containing the statement now asked to be inserted, and that he struck it out. It also appears that this, case was appealed from the circuit court of De Kalb county to the court of civil appeals and there tried, and that the case was thence brought into this court by the writ of certiorari, in accordance with the practice laid down in the act establishing the court of civil appeals. No application for mandamus was made in that court.

On the facts stated the application must be denied on two grounds: First. The writ of mandamus being a discretionary writ, it will not be granted in any case where the court can see that it would be useless. The circuit judge having already refused to sign a bill of exceptions containing the matter now sought to be inserted, and no reason being shown as a basis for supposing or believing that he has changed his vieAV [206]*206about tbe matter, or Ms recollection of wbat happened in the court below, we cannot suppose that he would do otherwise than make a return to the alternative writ, to the effect that no such action took place in the court below. In the face of such return this court would not grant a peremptory writ. Secondly. The application should have been made to the court of civil appeals. After a case passes that court no change can be made in the bill of exceptions. Under the act-establishing the court of civil appeals this court must try a case when brought here by certiorari on the record on which the court of civil appeals acted.

On the grounds stated, we are of opinion there is no merit in the application, and it must be disallowed.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Orr v. Thomas
585 S.W.2d 606 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1979)
Stargel v. Stargel
107 S.W.2d 520 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1937)
Blanton v. Tennessee Central Railway Co.
4 Tenn. App. 335 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1926)
Hyde v. Dunlap
3 Tenn. App. 368 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1926)
Brown v. Crystal Ice Co.
122 Tenn. 239 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 Tenn. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantrell-v-golden-tenn-1907.