Ex parte Martin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
- This was a petition for mandamus, addressed to one of the judges of this court in vacation, showing, in substance, that about the 4th Oct., 1843, James Bradley sued Martin, before McDade, a justice of the peace for Bradley county; that at the return day, 14th Oct., 1843, M. was prevented by the extreme illness of his family, from attending the trial, but appointed one J. P. to proceed to the office of the justice and state the cause of non-appearance, and request a…
Read the full summary
- This was a petition for mandamus, addressed to one of the judges of this court in vacation, showing, in substance, that about the 4th Oct., 1843, James Bradley sued Martin, before McDade, a justice of the peace for Bradley county; that at the return day, 14th Oct., 1843, M. was prevented by the extreme illness of his family, from attending the trial, but appointed one J. P. to proceed to the office of the justice and state the cause of non-appearance, and request a postponement of the trial. On the 14th Oct., judgment was rendered against him. On the 8th day of Nov. following, he proceeded…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Lacv, J.
It is dear to our minds, that a peremptory mandamus ought lo i^uc in (his case. The facts show that the applicant was entitled to an appeal,- and that he did whatever the law required, to give the benefit of it. As it has been improperly and unlawfully denied him, let the rule be marie absolute, according to the prayer of the petitioner.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wood v. StrotherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Miller v. Heard & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1845