Ex parte Jemison
Supreme Court of Alabama
APPLICATION for a mandamus to the circuit court of Sumter, Hon. Vm. S. Mudd presiding, to compel the dismissal of a suit therein pending, wherein James B. Smith and others are plaintiffs, and "William II. Jemison is defendant, on account of the plaintiffs’ failure to give security for the costs.
Read the full summary
APPLICATION for a mandamus to the circuit court of Sumter, Hon. Vm. S. Mudd presiding, to compel the dismissal of a suit therein pending, wherein James B. Smith and others are plaintiffs, and "William II. Jemison is defendant, on account of the plaintiffs’ failure to give security for the costs. The circuit court overruled the motion to dismiss the suit, because it appeared that one of the plaintiffs was a resident citizen of this State at the time the suit was commenced, and so continued up to the time when the motion wras heard. The defendant, having excepted to this ruling of the court…
1Opinion of the CourtRice, C. J.
— Where one of several plaintiffs is a resident of this State at the commencement of the action, and at the time a motion is made to dismiss the suit under section 2396 of the Code, for want of security for costs, the motion ought to be overruled. The resident plaintiff is liable to a judgment for costs; and in such case, that section of the Code does not authorize a dismissal of the suit, for the failure to give security for the costs before or at the time the action is commenced. — Ex parte Bush, 29 Ala. 50.
The motion is denied, at the costs of the petitioner.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ex parte BushSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kyle v. PerdueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Taylor v. MortonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Eudora Mining & Development Co. v. BarclaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Tuskaloosa Wharf Co. v. Mayor of TuskaloosaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1863
- Kellog ex rel. Monroe v. BokeePennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1898