Haglin & Pope v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Arkansas
For the facts of this case, see the dissenting opinion of' Chief Justice English, page 500, where they are fully stated, and are, therefore, omitted here. Rep. Mandamus the proper remedy. 7 Peters, 634; Green’s. Plead, and Practice, 1178-1187; People v. Sup.
Read the full summary
For the facts of this case, see the dissenting opinion of' Chief Justice English, page 500, where they are fully stated, and are, therefore, omitted here. Rep. Mandamus the proper remedy. 7 Peters, 634; Green’s. Plead, and Practice, 1178-1187; People v. Sup. Court,. 10 Wend., 285. The general rule that a mandamus will not lie, when party has another remedy, must be understood to refer to some specific remedy, which will place the party in the same situation in which he was before the act complained of. Etheridge v. Hall, 7 Porter, 47; People v. Supervisors, 12 Barber, 217 ; 17 Ala., 527 ; 13…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
By Act of January 23, 1875, any party to a suit, upon his own verified petition, supported by the affidavits of two credible witnesses, may obtain an order for a change of venue. The order may be made in term time, at the calling of the case, or by the judge, at any time, on due-notice to the adverse party or his attorney.
Section 4 of the Act provides that in all cases where-such order may be made, the clerk shall make a certified copy of all the orders in the case, and “upon the payment of the transmission fees, hereinafter provided,” shall transmit the papers in the case to the clerk of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McDaniel v. AshworthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Simmons-Burks Clothing Co. v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Rattray v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1883
- Fritz v. WellsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907