Hamilton v. Smart
Mary Alice Hamilton v. Charles A. Smart, as Judge, etc.
Syllabus
Summary
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:
In an action brought by Mary Alice Hamilton against the city of Ottawa she moved for a change of venue, upon the ground that the district judge was disqualified by reason of being a resident and taxpayer of the city. The motion was denied, and thereupon the plaintiff applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel that court to grant a change of venue. She insists that the district court committed error in denying her application for a change of venue. It is plausibly argued by counsel for defendant that ownership of property and residence within a city do not constitute such an interest as disqualifies a judge, but, however that may be, if an error was committed in refusing a change of venue it may be corrected in an ordinary appellate proceeding. The extraordinary *219 remedy of mandamus can not be employed when an effective remedy may be had in a proceeding in error. (Mason v. Grubel, 64 Kan. 835 , 68 Pac. 660 .)
The writ is denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.