From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte May

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 15, 1950
253 Ala. 684 (Ala. 1950)

Summary

recognizing circuit court's jurisdiction over challenge to election contest when plaintiff alleged that statement of contest did not comply with statutory requirements

Summary of this case from Gilbert v. Ala. Democratic Party

Opinion

4 Div. 613.

June 15, 1950.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Coffee County.

Wm. S. Pritchard and Victor H. Smith, of Birmingham, for applicants.

Richard T. Rives, of Montgomery, for respondent.


This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ directed to Honorable Bowen W. Simmons, Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County, requiring him to desist from proceeding further in a matter pending in his court wherein a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ is sought forbidding the members of a sub-committee of the State Democratic Executive Committee to hear and determine a contest of the election of Jack M. Bridges, Neil O. Davis, W. L. Horn, and G. C. Hughes to the State Democratic Executive Committee from the Third Congressional District of Alabama.

The petition filed here makes exhibits thereto the following: (1) the statement of contest filed before the State Democratic Executive Committee as to the election of Neil O. Davis, which the petition alleges is typical of the statements of contest filed against Bridges, Horn and Hughes; (2) the statement filed by the contestees with the sub-committee challenging its jurisdiction to hear and decide the contest; (3) the petition for writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ filed before the Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County by the contestees; (4) the order of said Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County commanding the members of the said sub-committee to desist from proceeding further with the hearing of the contest, or else show cause on July 20, 1950, why a writ of prohibition should not issue restraining and perpetually forbidding each of the members of said committee from proceeding further with the contest.

The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to prevent the executive committees of political parties and the sub-committees thereof from proceeding in election contests, where such committees or sub-committees do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such contests. Such is the effect of Ex parte State ex rel. Bragg, 240 Ala. 80, 197 So. 32.

We hold that the averments of Paragraph 14 of the petition presented to the circuit court were sufficient to invoke its jurisdiction to issue the rule nisi. The averments of Paragraph 14 are to the effect that the statements of contest were not filed by the contestants with the Chairman of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama, and the required sum to cover the costs and expenses of said contest was not deposited with the said Chairman within fifteen days after the result of said primary election had been declared. If such averments are true, then the sub-committee was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the contest. In our opinion, all the other grounds of the petition presented to the Acting Judge of the Circuit Court of Coffee County were insufficient to invoke its jurisdiction in the premises.

The prayer for the rule nisi is denied and the petition dismissed.

Writ denied.

BROWN, FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, LAWSON, SIMPSON, and STAKELY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte May

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 15, 1950
253 Ala. 684 (Ala. 1950)

recognizing circuit court's jurisdiction over challenge to election contest when plaintiff alleged that statement of contest did not comply with statutory requirements

Summary of this case from Gilbert v. Ala. Democratic Party

In Ex parte May, 253 Ala. 684, 46 So.2d 836, the appellees here filed their petition for writ of prohibition in the circuit court of Coffee County seeking to prevent a subcommittee of the State Committee from proceeding with a hearing of an election contest on the ground that the subcommittee was without jurisdiction.

Summary of this case from Prather v. Ray
Case details for

Ex Parte May

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte MAY et al

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jun 15, 1950

Citations

253 Ala. 684 (Ala. 1950)
46 So. 2d 836

Citing Cases

Prather v. Ray

Petitioners had the clear legal right to a declaratory judgment as to the effect of the decision declaring…

Perloff v. Edington

Contests of party nominations are to be determined exclusively by party tribunals and Circuit Courts have no…