Court Opinion

ID: 9825567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:24:09.741017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:00.498081
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Respondent (of course, through the attorneys supposed to be looking after the matter of sustaining his order), having failed to comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 38 (Code 1928, p. 1934) as to filing brief within fifteen days after the submission of the cause in this court, we are of the opinion that the application for rehearing might well be stricken, in accordance with the terms of said rule.
But it seems enough to say that, “on the filing of this petition, we were (after hearing) of opinion that it presented a prima facie case of peremptory mandamus” to the Hon. Alto V. Lee, as judge of the circuit court of Etowah county, commanding him as prayed in the petition. “And we, therefore, awarded a rule nisi to said judge commanding him to proceed” as prayed “or to show cause by a day named why a peremptory mandamus should not be issued in that behalf.” No appearance was made by said judge; no “cause,” as indicated, was shown, nor attempted to be shown.
His attorneys now state that “this matter was overlooked both by the judge and ourselves,” giving their “excuse” for the neglect. But we do not see that this is a circumstance which we can consider.
“Being still of opinion that the petition makes a prima facie case for the relief prayed, and no cause against awarding peremptory mandamus being shown by the respondent,” it results that our order heretofore entered might well have been rested on this ground, as well as on what we said in our original opinion. Ex parte Geter, 141 Ala. 323, 37 So. 341.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
Application overruled.