Ex parte Edwards

Decided November 15, 1898

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1898-11-15

This ivas au original petition for mandamus filed in this court. The facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. cited, Ex parto Toioer Manfg. Co., 103 Ala. 115; Teague v. Corbitt, 57 Ala. 537; Moore v. Winston, 66 Ala. 296. cited Pearson v. Barrington, 21 Ala. 169; lb., 32 Ala. 266; Baker v. Mitchell, 109 Ala. 191; Tyqh v, Bolán, 95 Ala, 270; 3 Brick. Dig., .331, § 62,

Relies on LeRoux v. Judge of Circuit Court

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1975

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHARPE, J.

¶1This petition is for a writ of inanclain us to the respondent, the chancellor, to require him to set aside an order made in a cause pending in the chancery court, to which this petitioner was a party.

¶2It nowhere appears that any objection was made to tire order in the chancery court, or that any application was made to the chancellor to set it aside, or that he has refused to do so.

¶3If it be as contended that the order was improper and should be vacated, still no necessity is shown for compulsory process against the chancellor, since it cannot .be assumed that he would not have granted voluntarily a meritorious application to set it aside. For that reason and Avitliout otherwise considering the merits of the application here made it aauII be denied.—Le Roux v. Judge etc., 45 Mich. 416.

¶4Mandamus denied.