Ex parte Mansony
Supreme Court of Alabama
A motion for a mandamus lo the cleric of the Circuit Court of Mobile, — The Supreme Court may grant a mandamus, and its jurisdiction is not appellate. (Aik. Digest 237.) The writ lies to compel the performance of duty, not merely to review the correctness of a decision, 5 Com. Dig. 33. It lies to compel a ministerial officer to do a specific act, 5 Com.
Read the full summary
A motion for a mandamus lo the cleric of the Circuit Court of Mobile, — The Supreme Court may grant a mandamus, and its jurisdiction is not appellate. (Aik. Digest 237.) The writ lies to compel the performance of duty, not merely to review the correctness of a decision, 5 Com. Dig. 33. It lies to compel a ministerial officer to do a specific act, 5 Com. Dig. 38. It is not a judicial writ, but mandatory, and will be granted where the court is satisfied of the party’s right, to compel an officer to act. (5 Com. Dig. 54 ; 19 Johns. Rep. 259 ; 3 Binney’s Rep. 273 ; 5 Ibid. S7 ; 6 Ibid. 453 ; 3…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— Chas. J. Masony, by his counsel, has moved this court for a writ of mandamus, to be directed to Malcolm J. McRae, clerk of the circuit court of Mobile, commanding him to issue a writ of execution on a judgment heretofore obtained by Mansony in that court, against Robert Chapman and olhers.
It does not appear from the record submitted to us, that the circuit court of Mobile has been applied to for a mandamus, or an order to coerce its clerk to issue an execution. But a motion is in the first instance made here, under the proviso to the second *99section of the fifth article of the constitution,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- State ex rel. Moore v. ArchibaldNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Hicks v. MichaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- The Homesteaders v. McCombs, Ins. Com'r.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Weber v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Jackson v. MobleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.