Court Opinion

ID: 9824973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:49:54.635134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:17.870450
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We had not, upon original consideration of this cause, overlooked the authorities relied upon by petitioner (Mann Lumber Co. v. Bailey Iron Works, 156 Ala. 598, 47 So. 325; Sloss-Sheffield Co. v. Webb, 184 Ala. 452, 63 So. 518; Troy Fertilizer Co. v. State, 134 Ala. 333, 32 So. 618), which are to the general effect that, unless the pleading is prellx, irrelevant, or frivolous, a motion to strike is not the appropriate remedy, but resort should be had to a demurrer. But we were of the opinion these authorities were without application in the instant case, where a statutory right of removal was involved, and the petition lacked jurisdictional averment to that end.
 Petitioner complains of a lack of opportunity to amend. But the only motion presented by petitioner made no reference to any amendment concerning the matter of jurisdictional averment noted in the foregoing opin*519ion. Had an offer to so amend been tins duly presented, it may be tbe court would have ■been justified in treating the matter as a renewed application in due form for an order of removal at that time. But such contingency need not be here considered, as no such amendment was offered. And it should not be overlooked that petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ, for the granting of which he must show a clear, specific, legal right (Brody v. Armstrong, 205 Ala. 263, 81 So. 708), and, clearly, the court, as the record thus stood, was justified in a retransfer of the cause to its original jurisdiction.
The cases of Self v. Comer, Brown v. French, and Briggs v. Prowell, noted in the original opinion, were not cited as here directly in point, but only as indicating the view of the court, as expressed in those authorities, that the petition for removal lacked this jurisdictional averment, which was considered as a condition precedent to removal.
We are not persuaded that our original opinion is erroneous, and the application will accordingly be denied.
Application for rehearing denied.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BOÜLDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.