Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Ingram Land Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Ingram Land Co.

93 So. 820, 208 Ala. 28, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 401

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 22, 1922

Docket5 Div. 804.

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 93 So. 820 (Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Ingram Land Co.) 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 State Ex Rel. Ingram Land Co., 93 So. 820, 208 Ala. 28, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 401 (Ala. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The petition was for change of venue' in a civil case. The prayer thereof was for writ of mandamus directing the presiding judge of the circuit embracing the county of Tallapoosa “to entelan order changing the venue in” the pending ease of Ingram Land Company, a partnership, against Nora E. Miller, “and transferring it for trial to some other than Tallapoosa county, Ala.”

Relator’s counsel makes the observation of the effect of the order sought, that after the circuit court having jurisdiction “had entered an order refusing to grant plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue of said cause” this court “direct the circuit court of Tallapoosa county to retrace its steps, and, on the grounds of alleged error, reverse its decision already rendered”—its judgment or order made and entered in said cause and motion. However, it is—

“well-settled law that when the duty to be performed is judicial, or involves the exercise of discretion on the part of a tribunal or officer, mandamus will lie to set judgment or discretion in motion, but will not direct the manner of its exercise. ‘The writ cannot be used for the correction of errors. If, howevep, judgment or discretion is abused, and exercised in an arbitrary and caprjcious manner, mandamus will lie to compel a proper exercise thereof.’ 19 Amer. & Eng. Ency. pp. 737-739; State ex rel. Mobile v. Board of Revenue, 180 Ala. 494, 61 South. 368; White v. Decatur, 119 Ala. 476, 23 South, 999.” Henry v. State ex rel. Welch, 200 Ala. 475, 476, 76 South. 417, 418.

After a careful examination of the petition, return and answer of the judge, and the affidavits and counter affidavits offered, we perceive no arbitrary exercise or capricious abuse of discretion in refusing to order a change of venue. No good purpose would be subserved by a detailed recital of pleadings, or of the contents of the affidavits in support of the motion or of the counter affidavits rebutting the same.

The writ of mandamus is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

The petition was for change of venue' in a civil case. The prayer thereof was for writ of mandamus directing the presiding judge of the circuit embracing the county of Tallapoosa “to entelan order changing the venue in” the pending ease of Ingram Land Company, a partnership, against Nora E. Miller, “and transferring it for trial to some other than Tallapoosa county, Ala.”

Relator’s counsel makes the observation of the effect of the order sought, that after the circuit court having jurisdiction “had entered an order refusing to grant plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue of said cause” this court “direct the circuit court of Tallapoosa county to retrace its steps, and, on the grounds of alleged error, reverse its decision already rendered”—its judgment or order made and entered in said cause and motion. However, it is—

“well-settled law that when the duty to be performed is judicial, or involves the exercise of discretion on the part of a tribunal or officer, mandamus will lie to set judgment or discretion in motion, but will not direct the manner of its exercise. ‘The writ cannot be used for the correction of errors. If, howevep, judgment or discretion is abused, and exercised in an arbitrary and caprjcious manner, mandamus will lie to compel a proper exercise thereof.’ 19 Amer. & Eng. Ency. pp. 737-739; State ex rel. Mobile v. Board of Revenue, 180 Ala. 494, 61 South. 368; White v. Decatur, 119 Ala. 476, 23 South, 999.” Henry v. State ex rel. Welch, 200 Ala. 475, 476, 76 South. 417, 418.

After a careful examination of the petition, return and answer of the judge, and the affidavits and counter affidavits offered, we perceive no arbitrary exercise or capricious abuse of discretion in refusing to order a change of venue. No good purpose would be subserved by a detailed recital of pleadings, or of the contents of the affidavits in support of the motion or of the counter affidavits rebutting the same.

The writ of mandamus is denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 820, 208 Ala. 28, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-state-ex-rel-ingram-land-co-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack