RULING CASE LAW

VOLUME XXII

PROHIBITION

I. INTRODUCTORY

II. REMEDY IN GENERAT

III. EXISTENCE AND ADEQUACY OF OTHER REMEDIES
IV. TRIBUNALS AND PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT TO WRIT
V. GROUNDS OF RELIEF

VI. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRIT

IV. Tribunals and Proceedings Subject to Writ

COURTS AND JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS

12. Acting in Judicial or Quasi Judicial Capacity

13. Acting in Legislative or Ministerial Capacity
14. Particular Courts and Tribunals
15. De Facto Officers and Tribunals

PUBLIC OFFICERS AND BOARDS

16. Acting in Judicial or Quasi Judicial Capacity 17. Acting in Legislative or Ministerial Capacity

V. Grounds of Relief

18. Usurpation of Jurisdiction Generally

19. Want of Jurisdiction

20. Excess of Jurisdiction

21. Loss of Jurisdiction

22. Errors and Irregularities

23. Multiplicity of Suits; Constitutional Questions

VI. Jurisdiction to Issue Writ

24. Generally

25. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions 26. Federal Courts

VII. Procedure

27. Necessity of Objection in Inferior Court

28. Parties

29. Time of Application

30. Mode of Making Application

31. Notice or Rule to Show Cause

32. Return, Answer or Demurrer

33. Scope of Hearing; Evidence

34. Violation of Writ and Punishment

I. INTRODUCTORY

1. Definitions.-Prohibition has been variously defined. As its name imports, the writ is one which commands the person to whom it is directed not to do something which, by the suggestion of the relator, the court is informed he is about to do. It is commonly defined, substantially, as a writ to prevent the exercise by a tribunal possessing judicial powers of jurisdiction over matters not within its cognizance,

1. U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 U. S. (L. ed.) 354.

Note: 9 L.R.A. 59.

or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. Blackstone defines it as a writ "directed to the judge and parties of a suit in any inferior court, commanding them to cease from the prosecution thereof, upon suggestion that either the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court." 3 Bl. Com. 112.3 In some of the states definitions have been formulated and adopted which, on their face, appear to extend the scope of the writ.

2. Other Writs Distinguished.-Prohibition has been likened to the equitable remedy by injunction against proceedings at law. The ob ject in each case is the restraining of legal proceedings; and as the right to the remedy by injunction implies a wrong threatened by the parties litigant against whom the relief is sought, so the right to the writ of prohibition implies that a wrong is about to be committed, not by the parties litigant, but by the person or court assuming the exercise of judicial power and against whom the writ is asked. There is this vital difference, however, between them: An injunction against proceedings at law is directed only to the parties litigant, without in any manner interfering with the court, while prohibition is directed to the court itself, commanding it to cease from the exercise of a jurisdiction to which it has no legal claim. It is not an affirmative remedy like mandamus, but purely negative, for it does not command that anything be done, but that something should be left undone." Moreover, prohibition is essentially jurisdictional and therefore judicial, while mandamus is purely ministerial. These two writs are the counterpart of each other, to the extent that one is prohibitory and the other mandatory; one acts on the person, the other acts on the tribunal; but beyond that they have nothing in common. The writ of prohibition agrees with both injunction and mandamus in

2. Ferguson v. Martineau, 115 Ark. 518; State v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 109, 140 317, 171 S. W. 472, Ann. Cas. 1916E S. W. 888, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 448; People v. Wyatt, 186 N. Y. 383, 79 N. E. 330, 9 Ann. Cas. 972, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 159.

421.

Notes: 12 Am. Dec. 604; 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 395.

3. State v. Road Com'rs, 1 Mill Const. (S. C.) 55, 12 Am. Dec. 596 and note; Bullard v. Thorpe, 66 Vt. 599, 30 Atl. 36, 44 A. S. R. 867, 25 L.R.A. 605.

Notes: 12 Am. Dec. 604; 111 A. R. 930.

4. Note: 111 A. S. R. 930.

S.

5. State v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 109, 140 S. W. 888, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 448. See generally, INJUNCTIONS, vol. 14, p.

405 et seq.

8. Note: 20 Ann. Cas. 964. 9. State v. Hogan, 24 Mont. 379, 62 Pac. 493, 51 L.R.A. 958.

Notes: 111 A. S. R. 931, 932; 20

6. Crittenden V. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723, 131 A. S. R. Ann. Cas. 964.

this: that, where there is an adequate remedy at law, it is not available, 10

II. REMEDY IN GENERAL

3. Nature and Purpose of Writ.-The authorities all agree that prohibition is a common law writ,11 of ancient origin. 12 Indeed, the writ is so ancient that forms of it are given in Glanville, the first book of English law, written in 1189, and mention is made of it in nearly all the treatises upon the common law, and the early reports.13 It is a civil remedy, given in a civil action,14 and has been held to be a suit. 15 Jurisdiction by prohibition is primarily preventive or restraining,16 and only incidentally remedial in the sense of giving relief to parties.17 The original purpose of the writ was to secure the sovereign rights, and preserve the public quiet; it was an emanative of the great executive authority of the king, delegated to his courts, and particularly to the king's bench; one of his prerogative writs, necessary to perfect the administration of his justice, and the control of subordinate functionaries and authorities.18 The principal purpose at present is to prevent an inferior court or other tribunal from assuming a jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested,19 in cases where wrong, damage, and injustice are likely to follow from such action.20 It does not lie, as a rule, for grievances which may be

10. Note: 3 L.R.A. 56. See infra, par. 8.

11. In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 12 S. Ct. 453, 36 U. S. (L. ed.) 232; Clendaniel v. Conrad, 3 Boyce (Del.) 549, 83 Atl. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1915B 968.

Note: 111 A. S. R. 931.

12. State v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 109, 140 $. W. 888, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 448.

13. Bullard v. Thorpe, 66 Vt. 599, 30 Atl. 36, 44 A. S. R. 867, 25 L.R.A. 605.

14. Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 9 S. Ct. 253, 32 U. S. (L. ed.) 616; Woods v. Cottrell, 55 W. Va. 476, 47 S. E. 275, 104 A. S. R. 1004, 2 Ann. Cas. 933, 65 L.R.A. 616.

15. Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 U. S. (L. ed.) 481.

16. Havemeyer v. Superior Ct., 84 Cal. 327, 24 Pac. 121, 18 A. S. R. 192, 10 L.R.A. 627; Williamson v. Mingo County Ct., 56 W. Va. 38, 48 S. E. 835, 3 Ann. Cas. 355; Powhatan Coal, etc., Co. v. Ritz, 60 W. Va. 395, 56 S. E. 257, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1225.

18. State v. Road Com'rs, 1 Mill Const. (S. C.) 55, 12 Am. Dec. 596 and note.

19. Clendaniel v. Conrad, 3 Boyce (Del.) 549, 83 Atl. 1036, Ann. Cas. 1915B 968; State v. Riley, 203 Mo. 175, 101 S. W. 567, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 900; State v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S. W. 487, 123 A. S. R. 468, 14 Ann. Cas. 198, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 963: State v. Tracy, 237 Mo. 109, 140 S. W. 888, 37 L.R.A.(N.S.) 448.

Notes: 38 Am. Dec. 594; 3 L.R.A. 57; 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 843; 6 Ann. Cas. 986.

And see infra, par. 18.

20. Crittenden V. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723, 131 A. S. R. 518; Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. 47, 24 Pac.

redressed in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, by other remedies provided by law.1

4. General Principles Governing Issuance.-Like all other prerogative writs, ohibition is to be used with great caution and forbearance, for the furtherance of justice and to secure order and regularity in judicial proceedings, and should be issued only in cases of extreme necessity. A court will never issue a prohibition in a case where it is not justified, for the sole purpose of establishing a principle to govern other cases. Nor will it ordinarily be issued in a doubtful case.5 In a proper case, however, the use of the writ should be upheld and encouraged, as it is important to the due and regular administration of justice that each tribunal should confine itself to the exercise of those powers with which, under the constitution and laws of the state, it has been intrusted. It should not be governed by narrow technical rules, but should be resorted to as a convenient mode of exercising a wholesome control over inferior tribunals. The scope of the remedy ought not to be abridged, as it is better to prevent the exercise of an unauthorized power than to be driven to the necessity of correcting the error after it is committed.' Indeed, the writ is perhaps more remedial than it was originally, although the principles underlying the jurisdiction and governing its exercise remain unaltered, except when broadened by statute."

5. Discretion as to Granting Writ.-Whether the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary or demandable of right has been much debated. It is often said that it is not a writ of right, but one of sound judicial discretion, to be issued or refused according to the facts

367, 37 A. S. R. 478, 9 L.R.A. 59 and note; Bell v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 28 Nev. 280, 81 Pac. 875, 113 A. S. R. 854, 6 Ann. Cas. 982, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 843 and note.

1. See infra, par. 8.

2. Whitehead v. Roberts, 86 Conn. 351, 85 Atl. 538, Ann. Cas. 1914A 134; Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. 47, 24 Pac. 367, 37 A. S. R. 478, 9 L.R.A. 59 and note; Bell v. First Judicial Dist. Ct., 28 Nev. 280, 81 Pac. 875, 113 A. S. R. 854, 6 Ann. Cas. 982, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 843 and note.

Note: 3 L.R.A. 57.

3. Crittenden v. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723, 131 A. S. R. 518; Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. 47, 24 Pac. 367, 37 A. S. R. 478, 9 L.R.A. 59 and note; Bell First Judicial Dist. Ct., 28 Nev. 280, 81 Pac. 875, 113 A. S. R. 854, 6 Ann Cas. 982, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 843

V.

and note; People v. Wyatt, 186 N. Y. 383, 79 N. E. 330, 9 Ann. Cas. 972, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 159; Holly Shelter R. Co. v. Newton, 133 N. Č. 136, 45 S. E. 549, 98 A. S. R. 701.

4. Note: 3 L.R.A. 57.

5. State v. District Ct., 17 N. D. 285, 115 N. W. 675, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 331.

6. Bullard v. Thorpe, 66 Vt. 599, 30 Atl. 36, 44 A. S. R. 867, 25 L.R.A. 605.

7. State v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161, 107 S. W. 487, 123 A. S. R. 468, 14 Ann. Cas. 198, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 963.

8. People v. Wyatt, 186 N. Y. 383, 79 N. E. 330, 9 Ann. Cas. 972, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 159; Powhatan Coal, etc., Co. v. Ritz, 60 W. Va. 395, 56 S. E. 257, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1225

9. Crittenden v. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723, 131 A. S. R. 518.