Summary
In Ex parte State ex rel. Tuck, 217 Ala. 143, 115 So. 155, mandamus was granted to require a trial judge to order a party to a lawsuit to answer the interrogatories of his opponent.
Summary of this case from Ex Parte KelleyOpinion
6 Div. 3.
January 12, 1928.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, to Hon. Roger Snyder, Judge.
M. B. Grace, of Birmingham, for petitioner.
A party is bound to answer all pertinent interrogatories unless by the answers he subjects himself to criminal prosecution. Code 1923, § 7764; W. O. W. v. Alford, 206 Ala. 18, 89 So. 528. A party has the right to file supplemental interrogatories and require the adverse party to answer them. Ala. Power Co. v. Bodine, 213 Ala. 627, 105 So. 869; Southern R. Co. v. Hubbard, 116 Ala. 387, 22 So. 541; B. R. L. P. Co. v. Oden, 164 Ala. 1, 51 So. 240.
Fred Fite, of Birmingham, for respondent.
Mandamus will not lie for the correction of errors. Ex parte State, 208 Ala. 28, 93 So. 820. Nor will it lie to control the action of the trial court upon its ruling on the admissibility of evidence during the progress of trial. Ex parte Little, 205 Ala. 517, 88 So. 645.
The facts stated in the petition show that a legal right — the right to require his adversary in the pending suit to answer the petitioner's interrogatories, filed under section 7764 of the Code — has been denied to him for the redress of which the writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy. Robinson v. Craig, 16 Ala. 50; Mallory v. Matlock, 7 Ala. 757; Id., 10 Ala. 595.
We do not overlook the decision in Ex parte Grantland, 29 Ala. 69, that the writ will not be granted in such cases when it appears that the interrogatories to which it is directed call for irrelevant evidence. But the petition here shows that the interrogatories in question, with perhaps a few isolated exceptions, are not vague nor uncertain, and call for matter which is relevant to the issue and legally admissible, and as to which the defendant is bound and should be required to answer.
As to the few possible exceptions referred to, if legally objectionable appropriate objections should be filed and brought to the attention of the trial court, but that cannot justify the trial court in its refusal to require answers to proper questions.
The petition does not seek to control any discretionary action of the trial court, nor does it seek to review, by piecemeal, any ruling of the court on the admissibility of evidence, and the writ will not so operate.
The demurrer to the petition will be overruled, and it is ordered that the rule nisi issue as prayed. Since, however, the petitioner has filed a second set of interrogatories, it is unnecessary to deal further with the first set, and the remedial range of the writ will be limited to the action of the trial court with respect to the second set of interrogatories, those filed on December 31, 1926.
Writ granted.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.