CARROLL et al. v. PAGOULATOS BROS. et al.

(93 South. 259) CARROLL et al. v. PAGOULATOS BROS. et al. (6 Div. 31.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 30, 1922.) Mandamus <&wkey;8 — Petition for writ to compel vacation of orders or decrees in separate actions by different plaintiffs denied. A petition for mandamus to compel vacation of orders or decrees in separate proceedings by separate plaintiffs, presenting distinct rights of different persons, which cannot be joined in the same petition, will be dismissed. Petition by Nannie Carroll and Reams Underhill, pro ami, for mandamus to be directed to J. Q. Smith, as Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, requiring him to vacate and annul an order or judgment setting aside judgments rendered in favor of petitioners separately against Pagoulatos Bros, and others. Petition dismissed. R. J. McClure and T. D. McGaughey, both of Birmingham, for petitioners. It was proper to join the petitioners in the petition. 197 Ala. 452, 73 South. 16, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 872 ; 26 Cyc. 40S; 55 W. Va. 202, 46 S. E. 927, 2 Ann. Cas. 74; 88 Iowa, 570, 55 N. W. 524. The petition for new trial did not conform to the requirements. 201 Ala. 13, 75 South. 304. Mandamus was the proper remedy. 142 Ala. 87, 38 South. 835, 110 Am. St. Rep. 20. W. T. Stewart, of Birmingham, for respondents. The petition should be dismissed and the writ denied. 26 Cyc. 447; 145 Ala. 502, 40 South. 279. [MAJORITY — SAMEORD, J.] SAMEORD, J. Petition is filed by Nannie Carroll and Reams Underhill, pro ami, praying a writ of mandamus to issue to compel J. Q. Smith, as Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, to annul and set aside two orders or decrees, entered in the case of Nannie Carroll, Plaintiff, v. Pagoulatos Bros., No.18428, and Reams Underhill, pro ami, v. Pagoulatos Bros., No. 18429, in the circuit court of Jefferson county, wherein judgments by default in favor of the two plaintiffs and against the defendants had, upon motion of defendants, under section 5372 of the Code of 1907, been set aside. The petition presents distinct rights of different persons, which cannot be joined in the same petition, and for that reason the petition must be dismissed. Goodwyn, Judge, v. Sherer, 145 Ala. 501, 40 South. 279; Banks v. Mobley, 4 Ala. App. 510, 58 South. 745. The respondents’ motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed.