Hamilton v. Smart
This text of 95 P. 836 (Hamilton v. Smart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In an action brought by Mary Alice Hamilton against the city of Ottawa she moved for a change of venue, upon the ground that the district judge was disqualified by reason of being a resident and taxpayer of the city. The motion was denied, and thereupon the plaintiff applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel that court to grant a change of venue. She insists that the district court committed error in denying her application for a change of venue. It is plausibly argued by counsel for defendant that ownership of property and residence within a city do not constitute such an interest as disqualifies a judge, but, however that may be, if an error was committed in refusing a change of venue it may be corrected in an ordinary appellate proceeding. The extraordinary [219]*219remedy of mandamus can not be employed when an effective remedy may be had in a proceeding in error. (Mason v. Grubel, 64 Kan. 835, 68 Pac. 660.)
The writ is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 P. 836, 78 Kan. 218, 1908 Kan. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-smart-kan-1908.