TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Thompson

Ex Parte THOMPSON Et Al.

Ex Parte Thompson, 121 So. 429 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Alabama Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 15, 1929
Docket
No. 6 Div. 495.
Judges
Rice
Citations
121 So. 42923 Ala. App. 461929 Ala. App. LEXIS 47

Opinion of the Court — Rice

RICE, J.

Yon L. Thompson, Anna M. Thompson, and Foy M. Thompson apply to this court for-an original mandamus, to J. Russell McElroy, judge No. 11, of the circuit court for the Tenth judicial circuit of Alabama (Gen. Acts Ala. 1927, pp. 671, 672), commanding him to recuse himself from the trial or other handling of certain cases named in the petition, pending at the time the petition was filed in said circuit court of the Tenth judicial circuit. All of the cases named in the petition are “cases appealed from the Recorder’s Courts of the City of Birmingham to the Circuit Court of said (Tenth) Judicial Circuit,” and it would seem, though it is unnecessary for us to so hold, that said cases were intended by the Legislature (Acts 1927, p., 671, supra) to be tried before the said judge No. 11, if not exclusively, in preference to every other judge of said judicial circuit.

Whatever may be the practice in other jurisdictions, in ours, it appears that, by statute (Code of Ala. 1923, § 8978), one against whom the writ of m,andam,us is sought, or the defendant, may test the sufficiency of the petition filed, by demurrer. That has been done in this case.

Boiled down and stripped of immaterial or superfluous statements, the petition filed here attempts to set up or allege matters which it is conceived by petitioners disqualify the said J. Russell McElroy, judge No. 11, aforesaid, from sitting as judge in the cases described in the petition. Code of Ala. 1923, § 8570. The procedure followed is that prescribed by law. In other words “where the Judge is shown to be incompetent [disqualified], ‘mandamus is the proper remedy to compel him to certify his incompetency, as a preliminary to the selection of a qualified Judge in his stead.’ ” Woodmen of the World v. Alford, 206 Ala. 18 , 89 So. 528 , and cases cited in the opinion in same ( 206 Ala. 22 ) 89 So. 532 .

The grounds of disqualification of a judge to sit in any given case are, in addition to those listed in the statute (Code. 1923, § 8570, supra), any of those imposed by the common law. Woodmen of thé World v. Alford, supra; Pegues v. Baker, 110 Ala. 251 , 17 So. 943 . Of-these common-law grounds of disqualification, it was said in Ex parte State Bar Association, 92 Ala. 113, 118 , 8 So. 768 , 770: “The interest [of the judge] which will disqualify must be a pecuniary one, or one affecting the individual rights of the Judge.” See McConnell v. Goodwin, Judge, 189 Ala. 390 , 66 So. 675 , Ann, Cas. 1917A, 839.

And it has been said: That “at the com-' mon law * * * bias or favor, not the result of'interest or relationship, is not supposed to exist.” Fulton v. Longshore, Probate Judge, 156 Ala. 611 , 46 So. 989 , 19 L. R.

*50 A. (N. S.) 602. Also that “at common law there were but two objections that #went to the disqualifications of a Judge to try a cause, to wit, interest in his own behalf in the result or being kin to others interested therein.” Fulton v. Longshore, Probate Judge, supra.

The cause here is submitted upon the original petition, defendant’s demurrers, and, his answer. Ex parte Butler-Keyser Mfg. Co., 174 Ala. 237, 240 , 56 So. 960 . We have examined critically the petition, and conclude that it nowhere sets up any of the grounds of disqualification of the said J. Russell MeElroy, judge, etc., to sit as judge in the cases described in said petition, prescribed by the statute (Code, § 8570, supra), or those imposed by the common law. It follows that the petition is subject to the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grounds of demurrer interposed. The demurrers to the petition are sustained, and the writ of mandamus is denied.

Demurrer sustained. Writ denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 21972: 11974: 21977: 11985: 119292026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte White300 So. 2d 420 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)
  2. In re White300 So. 2d 439 (Ala. 1974)
  3. Slinker v. State344 So. 2d 1264 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)
  4. Loper v. State469 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
  5. Shell v. Shell267 So. 2d 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 1972)
  6. Clayton v. State123 So. 250 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Loper v. State469 So. 2d 707 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
  2. Slinker v. State344 So. 2d 1264 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)
  3. In re White300 So. 2d 439 (Ala. 1974)
  4. Ex Parte White300 So. 2d 420 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974)
  5. Shell v. Shell267 So. 2d 461 (Ala. Civ. App. 1972)
  6. Morris v. McElroy121 So. 924 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Woodmen of the World v. Alford, 89 So. 528 (Ala. 1920) 39
Fulton v. Longshore, 46 So. 989 (Ala. 1908) 45
McConnell v. Goodwin, 66 So. 675 (Ala. 1914) 12
Ex parte Butler-Keyser Mfg. Co., 56 So. 960 (Ala. 1911) 3
Ex parte State Bar Ass'n, 92 Ala. 113 (1890) 46
Pegues v. Baker, 110 Ala. 251 (1895) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list