Ex parte McCoy

64 Ala. 201
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 15, 1879
StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ala. 201 (Ex parte McCoy) 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
Ex parte McCoy, 64 Ala. 201 (Ala. 1879).

Opinion

STONE, J.

Each and every of the duties, the non-observance of which is urged as a ground for quashing and setting aside the venire for the grand jury, is declared by the statute to be directory, and furnishes, of itself, no predicate for the relief prayed for in this case. — Code of 1876, §§ 4759, 4889, 4890; Boulo v. The State, 51 Ala. 18; Dotson v. The State, 62 Ala. 141; Cross v. The State, 63 Ala. 40. We need not,.and do not, inquire what would be the duty of the presiding judge, if corruption, fraud, or partiality in the drawing of the jury, were charged. Nothing of the kind is charged in this case. — Brooks’ case, 9 Ala. 9.

The writ of mandamus is refused.

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

Related

State v. Brooks
9 Ala. 9 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1846)
Boulo v. State
51 Ala. 18 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1874)
Dotson v. State
62 Ala. 141 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1878)
Cross v. State
63 Ala. 40 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Ala. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-mccoy-ala-1879.