Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Ala. 528

Ex parte Smith

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1881-12-15

<p> Application for Mandmnus. </p> <p>1. Petition for mandamus ; when it will not be considered by this court. Tins court will not consider a petition for mandamus, to compel a probate judge to bear and determine evidence on a writ of habeas corpus seeking to review the petitioner’s commitment by a justice of the peace on a charge of felony, where the record consists of a petition simply narrative of the facts, and averring that the probate judge declined to take jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition and writ, of habeas corpus, there being no bill of exceptions, or entry of .record showing the action of the court.</p> <p>2. Same ; proper practice on application for in this court. The proper practice in such cases is for the petitioner to reserve a bill of exceptions; and in the absence thereof, the case is not properly presented for the consideration of this court.</p>

Relies on Ex parte Nettles · Ex parte Croom · Ex parte Brown

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1939

4 state decisions

20188118901900191019201930decided

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 →

SOMERYILLE, J.

¶1This is an application on the part of the petitioner, Smith, for a writ of mandamus, to compel the probate judge of Calhoun county to hear and determine evidence on writ of habeas corpus, seeking to- review the petitioner’s commitment by a justice of the peace on a charge of as- ' sault with intent to murder.

¶2The record before us consists of a petition simply narrative of the facts, accompanied with the averment that the probate judge declined jurisdiction and dismissed the petition and writ of habeas corpxts. The facts are admitted by the probate judge to be stated correctly in the petition — .this admission being in writing. There is no bill of exceptions reserved, and no record showing the action of the court other than the averments of the petition.

¶3The proper practice in cases of this character is for the petitioner to reserve a bill of exceptions, .and in the absence of it, the case is not presented properly for the consideration of this *529court. — Ex parte South & North R. R. Co., 65 Ala. 599; Ex parte Dickson, 64 Ala. 188; Ex parte Brown, 65 Ala. 446; Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268; Ex parte Croom & May, 19 Ala. 561.

¶4The application is denied with costs.

/69/ala/528 · .json · Public domain