Case ID: ala_26/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte ROWLAND.
    1. Mandamus from the Supreme Court does not lie to compel the chancellor to dismiss a cause, on motion, in pursuance of a written agreement between . the parties to that'effect.
    APPLICATION for a mandamus to the Chancery Court of Perry. Hon. James B. Clark, presiding.
    The petitioner (John S'. Rowland) alleges that he filed a bill in equity, in April, 1853, against one Samuel Whitman, for the settlement of certain partnership accounts ; that after the defendant had answered, and had also filed a cross bill, a written agreement was entered into between them, “ that the said original bill, cross bill, and answer, and all the claims set up in the same, should be totally abandoned by the parties, as though they had never existed, — each party paying Ms own costs”; that Whitman, at the next term of the court, moved to set aside this agreement, on the ground of fraud, and filed affidavits in support of his mo.tion, and at. the same term petitioner moved the court to dismiss the cause in pursuance of said agreement; and at the next term of the court, both these motions were overruled and refused,' — with leave to petitioner to move to modify the injunction, and without prejudice to Whitman’s right to proceed by supplemental bill (or otherwise) to have said agreement vacated. And on these facts the petitioner now asks for a rule nisi against the chancellor, to show cause why a peremptory mandamus should not issue from this court, to compel him to dismiss said cause in pursuance of said written agreement.
    I. W. Garrott, for the motion,
    to show that mandamus was the proper remedy, cited Stephenson v. Mansony, 4 Ala. 320; Mallory v. Mattock, 7 ib. 757; same case, 10' ib. 597; Tarver v. Commissioners’ Court of Talladega, 17 ib. 527 ; Tapping on Mandamus (67 Law Lib.), top p. 58-9.
    Jos. R. JOHN, contra,
    contended that this was nota proper case for a mandamus, and cited the following authorities: Board of Police of Attala Co. v. Grant, 9 Sm. & M. 88; Ex parte Milner, 6 Eng. Law andEq. Rep. 373 ; The People v. Judges of Duchess C. P., 20 Wend. 658 ; Ex parte Elston, 25 Ala. 72 ; Ex parte Henry, 24 ib. 638 ; - Ex parte City Council of Montgomery, ib. 98.
   PER CURIAM.

—Motion refused, on the authority of Ex parte Elston, 25 Ala. 72; Ex parte Small, ib. 74; Ex parte City Council of Montgomery, 24 ib. 98, and cases cited.