TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Attorney General v. Livingston

State ex rel. Attorney General v. Livingston, Judge

State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Livingston, 54 So. 109 (Ala. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 30, 1910
Judges
McClellan
Citations
54 So. 109170 Ala. 1471910 Ala. LEXIS 269
Disposition
Rule nisi issued.
Headnotes
Gertiorari.
Summary
Petition by the State, on the relation of A. M. Gar-ber, Attorney General, for remedial writ to George S. Livingston, Judge of Probate. One Boy was held under a charge of murder, and applied to Hon. George S. Livingston, judge of probate of Autauga county, for bail. Upon the hearing of the habeas corpus, the judge allowed the petitioner bail, and the state gave notice of the appeal and presented the bill of exceptions. But the appeal was not made up and certified by the judge, and on a day following the petitioner filed in the Supreme Court a motion to establish a bill of exceptions in such cause, which was pending at the time this application was made. It is alleged that aft'er notice of appeal, and after motion made to establish the bill of exceptions on appeal, Hon. George S. Livingston^ as judge of probate, caused the sheriff to admit the prisoner to bail, and that the sheriff accepted such bond and released the prisoner. The prayer is that mandamus, certiorari, or other remedial writ be directed to the judge of probate to make up and certify to this court at once the papers in said cause which constitute the record proper, and that the judge of probate be ordered and directed to vacate the order attempting to deny to the state of Alabama the right to perfect such appeal and attempting to relieve said Roy of custody, and that the sheriff be directed to take the prisoner into custody and to hold him pending the decision of this matter. This petition is verified by affidavit.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Let rule nisi issue to the respondent, George S. Livingston, returnable to the next term of this court on Thursday of the week of the first call of the First division, to show cause why the writ prayed for in the petition should not be granted.

Concurrence — McClellan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McCLELLAN, J.

(concurring). — On the averments of the verified petition of the state, clearly making a prima facie case for the process and orders prayed, it is my opinion that the writ of certiorari should issue to bring up the record proper (the petition for habeas corpus and the order and judgment of the judge of probate) ; that the rule, nisi should issue to show cause why the order which was made May 24, 1910, should not be vacated, the appeal having theretofore been taken (Kimbrell v. Rogers, 90 Ala. 339 , 7 South. 241 ), and thereby transferring the matter to the sole jurisdiction and control of this court; and that in order to main *149 tain tbe status quo pending tbe disposition of tbe cause, tbe sheriff of Autauga should be directed to retake Boy into custody. The appeal, by tbe state, in such cases does not depend upon tbe perfection of tbe bill of exceptions. Tbe appeal must be taken in 20 days; whereas, 90 days are granted by tbe statute in which to present to tbe trial judge a bill of exceptions. No court can qualify this statutory right.—Sections 3019, 6245, 6247, and 6248, Code 1907. Tbe appeal required tbe suspension of tbe judgment awarding bail.—Section 6245, Code 1907; Ex parte Cameron, 81 Ala. 87 , 1 South. 20 . If tbe appeal was taken, the order of May 24, 1910, was void, and the release of tbe prisoner was wrong. It is tbe plain duty of this court to always preserve its jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11924: 11939: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lewis v. Martin98 So. 635 (Ala. 1923)
  2. In re Blades86 P.2d 737 (Idaho 1939)
  3. Baird v. Nagel142 N.E. 9 (Ind. 1924)

Most recent

  1. In re Blades86 P.2d 737 (Idaho 1939)
  2. Baird v. Nagel142 N.E. 9 (Ind. 1924)
  3. Lewis v. Martin98 So. 635 (Ala. 1923)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Kimbrell v. Rogers, 90 Ala. 339 (1890) 51
Ex parte Cameron, 81 Ala. 87 (1886) 6

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