Ex parte Bradshaw
Supreme Court of Alabama
Original petition in the Supreme Court. Mandamus by Caldwell Bradshaw directed against Hon. C. C. Nesmith, judge of the city court of Birmingham, for a rule requiring such judge to dismiss a cause for want of security for costs as fixed by him. The only question is the power of the court to override the mandates of section ■'3687, Code 1907. There are several lines of decisions as to this matter.
Read the full summary
Original petition in the Supreme Court. Mandamus by Caldwell Bradshaw directed against Hon. C. C. Nesmith, judge of the city court of Birmingham, for a rule requiring such judge to dismiss a cause for want of security for costs as fixed by him. The only question is the power of the court to override the mandates of section ■'3687, Code 1907. There are several lines of decisions as to this matter. The first are under the statutes prior to 1852, where it is held that it was not mandatory upon the courts to dismiss on motion. — Lyons v. Long, 6 Ala. 103; Whittaker v. Sanford, 13 Ala. 522. The…
1Opinion
On Rehearing.
SOMERVILLE, J.
A spirited criticism is made of the reasoning and the conclusion of the court as stated in the foregoing opinion. It is insisted: (1) That we have unwarrantedly read into the statute the word “first” in order to qualify the word “direct”; (2) that we have strictly construed a penal statute which ought to be construed liberally; (3) that we have violated the plain meaning and effect of two previous decisions of this court, viz., Ex parte Jones, 83 Ala. 587, 3 South. *252811, and First National Bank v. Chevey, 120 Ala. 117, 23 South. 733.
In view of the practical…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- First National Bank v. CheneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Crenshaw v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Bass Furnace Co. v. GlasscockSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Ex parte JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.