Legal Opinion

Tuck v. Carlisle

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 12, 1928No. 6 Div. 3PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

The facts stated in the petition show that a legal right — the right to require his adversary in the pending suit to answer the - petitioner’s interrogatories, filed under section 7764 of the Code — • has been denied to him for the redress of which the writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy. Robinson v. Craig, 16 Ala. 50; Mallory v. Matlock, 7 Ala. 757; Id., 10 Ala. 595.

We do not overlook the decision in Ex parte Grantland, 29 Ala. 69, that the writ will not be granted in such cases when it appears that the interrogatories to which it is directed call for irrelevant evidence. But the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mallory v. MatlockSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
  2. Ex parte GrantlandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
  3. Mallory v. MatlockSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
  4. Robinson v. CraigSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ex Parte FarrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  2. Ex Parte AltmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API