J. F. Colquett Et Al. v. Jimmy D. Williams

PER CURIAM. The history of this controversy is set out in the opinion of the Chief Justice which appears below. In our opinion,
the facts there recited show that Colquett and Wishum are strangers to the proceeding in which the order or judgment sought
to be subjected to examination here was made or rendered. Garrison v. Webb, 107 Ala. 499, 18 So. 297, 299. In the case just
cited, it was said: '* * * We can no more revise or order the vacation of an interlocutory order, in which the parties thereto have acquiesced,
by mandamus, at the instance of a stranger to the suit or proceeding, than we could entertain an appeal by him from the final
judgment or decree.' To entitle Colquett and Wishum to the extraordinary writ of mandamus, they must show that they have a
clear right to the performance of the act or duty demanded. Moseley v. Collins, 133 Ala. 326, 32 So. 131. In our opinion,
they have shown no such right. We do not understand the case of Taylor v. Jones, 202 Ala. 18, 79 So. 356, to so hold.