Opinion ID: 1617594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Tolling Issue

Text: At the oral argument in this case, and for the first time, the Leigebers argued that even if this Court held that the 10-day requirement of Rule 38(b) applied in this case, they, nonetheless, had met that 10-day requirement. The Leigebers argue that Judge Folsom's dismissal of their appeal tolled the running of the 10-day limitation until the appeal was reinstated, because they could not have made a jury demand while the appeal was not pending. This argument has merit. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing that there is: (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So.2d 889, 891 (Ala.1991). Although the Leigebers did not raise this tolling argument before Judge Folsom, they did seek an order to which they had a clear legal right. WRIT GRANTED. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, ADAMS, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.