140 So. 627
7 Div. 913.Court of Appeals of Alabama.
February 2, 1932. Rehearing Denied March 22, 1932.
Original petition of the State of Alabama, on the relation of Fannie Mae Lawson, for mandamus to Hon. W. B. Merrill as Judge of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County.
Writ denied.
Rutherford Lapsley, of Anniston, for petitioner.
In a bastardy proceeding, the sole purpose is to make adequate provision in the form of maintenance and support furnished by the father. The mother is the sole party in interest. The judgment was erroneous in relieving the defendant of the payment of money to support the child during defendant’s good behavior. Neither the state nor the mother has an appeal, and mandamus is the appropriate remedy. Code 1923, §§ 3416-3422, 3427, 3428; Hanna v. State, 60 Ala. 102. This proceeding is not a criminal proceeding, and suspension of sentence is not authorized. Acts 1931, p. 444; Williams v. State, 117 Ala. 199, 23 So. 42. Mandamus will lie to set aside a judgment erroneously entered. Ex parte Cunningham, 19 Ala. App. 584, 99 So. 834; Ex parte Alabama Marble Co., 216 Ala. 272, 113 So. 240; Ex parte Kay, 215 Ala. 569, 112 So. 147.
S.W. Tate, of Anniston, for respondent.
The proceedings are for the benefit of the child and not of the mother. Code 1923, § 3427. The judgment in the cause was proper. Code 1923, § 3427. The court has authority to suspend the sentence. Acts 1931, p. 444. Petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal, and mandamus will not lie. Code 1923, § 3439; Ex parte Woodruff, 123 Ala. 99, 26 So. 509; Ex parte Edwards, 20 Ala. App. 567, 104 So. 53; A. Z. Bailey Grocery Co. v. Commercial Sav. Bank Trust Co., 17 Ala. App. 173, 83 So. 11. A person not a party cannot appeal or have mandamus. Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 671, 21 So. 1017.
RICE, J.
Fannie Mae Lawson instituted a prosecution for bastardy, etc., against one Albert
Page 50
Hansard, which proceeded in the regular way to judgment. Code 1923, §§ 3416-3428.
Feeling herself aggrieved at the judgment rendered, she files this petition for mandamus, seeking to have this court direct the respondent to alter same.
We waive, as being unnecessary for us to decide, every question involved and raised, save the single one that, as we see it, decides our action.
By the provisions of Code 1923, § 3439, every grievance put forward by petitioner in this petition, can be adequately dealt with by “appeal.”
When this is true, in any case, this court must deny the petition for the extraordinary writ here prayed for. Ex parte Woodruff, 123 Ala. 99, 26 So. 509; Ex parte Watters et al., 180 Ala. 523, 526, 61 So. 904. And it is so ordered.
Writ denied.
SAMFORD, J., concurs in conclusion only.