Haldeman, Mayor, &c. v. Davis.
| Citation | 28 W.Va. 324 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Decision Date | 18 September 1886 |
| Parties | Haldeman, Mayor, &c. v. Davis. |
3. It will not lie to restrain an inferior court from exercising jurisdiction in a particular case, if such court has jurisdiction of eases of that kind. (p. 327.)
4. The petition for a writ of prohibition must clearly show by its
allegations, that the inferior court is about to proceed in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction. If the facts alleged leave the question of jurisdiction doubtful, the writ will be refused, (p. 327.)
5. A case in which a writ of prohibition was properly refused by the circuit court.
B. S. Blair for plaintiff in error.
Writ of error to an order made by the circuit court of Doddridge county, on July 30, 1885 in a proceeding by P. S. Haldeman, as mayor ot the town of West Union in said county against F. M. Davis, a justice of the said county. The plaintiff in error, Haldeman, on July 3, 1885, presented his petition and affidavit to the judge of said court, praying for a writ ot prohibition against.Davis, the defendant in error. A rule was awarded against Davis to show cause why the writ should not issue. The defendant appeared and moved the court to discharge this rule, upon the ground that the facts set forth in the petition are not sufficient to warrant the issuing of the writ of prohibition, which motion the court sustained and refused the writ, and the plaintiff brought this writ of error.
The action of the court was plainly right. The petition wholly fails to state any ground for a writ ot prohibition. It states that by an ordinance of the town of West Union it is provided that, "AH prosecutions for violations of the ordinances and laws of the town shall be before the mayor;" that on June 19, 1885, Floyd Neely, W. W. Reynolds and Arthur Ingle were drunk on the public streets ot the town; that the sergeant sought to arrest them and called upon H. C. Brannon to assist in the arrest and he refused to do so; that the sergeant made complaint against said Brannon and the mayor issued his warrant tor his arrest; that Brannon learning ot said warrant consulted with the defendant, Davis, and for the purpose of forestaling the action of the mayor, Davis as justice had Brannon arrested for the same offence and tried and discharged him; that after the sergeant had arrested the said Neely, Reynolds and Ingle for the offence aforesaid, the defendant had them arrested and taken before him in the night time charged with the same offence and took jurisdiction of them and ousted the jurisdiction of the mayor; that the defendant as justice had not jurisdiction of said cases because the mayor was then and there ready to try them; that the defendant as justice is constantly issuing summonses and warrants against the mayor and sergeant at the instance of irresponsible and disreputable persons for trifling amounts and on talse charges for the sole purpose of obstructing the authorities of the town irom enforcing the ordinances and laws of the town, and defeating their efforts to suppress drunkenness, vice and immorality under the pretence that the mayor and sergeant charge and take illegal fees and are guilty of other offences; that said Davis now has on his docket certain cases pending against said town, mayor and sergeant, of the character just described, in regard to the disposition of which he has "talked and declared that he could not or would not do justice in their trial; and by pretence of said several acts and many others the said Davis as justice daily contrives, with intent and purpose aforesaid, to obstruct the law and assist offenders to evade punishment to the manifest damage and prejudice and grievance ot all good people and law-abiding citizens of said town of West Union." The prayer is that a writ of prohibition may issue, &c.
It the prayer had not been any more definite than the allegations of the petition it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to determine, what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. City of Huntington v. Lombardo
...348, pt. 3 syl., 34 S.E. 728. Prohibition is a preventive remedy. State, etc. v. Newman, 85 W.Va. 423, pt. 2 syl., 102 S.E. 122; Haldeman v. Davis, 28 W.Va. 324, pt. 4 It has been held that the police civil service commission of Huntington is an 'inferior tribunal' within a statute authoriz......
-
Atwood v. Cox
...State v. Hartman, 221 Mo.App. 215, 300 S.W. 1054; State v. Superior Court of King County, 30 Wash. 156, 70 P. 230, 73 P. 690; Haldeman v. Davis, 28 W.Va. 324; County Court v. Boreman, 34 W.Va. 362, S.E. 490; Arkle v. Board Com'rs, 41 W.Va. 471, 23 S.E. 804; Cincinnati, P. B. S. & P. Packet ......
-
State ex rel. Peery v. Davis
...65 S.E.2d 398; State ex rel. Rufus v. Easley, 129 W.Va. 410, 40 S.E.2d 827; Bloxton v. McWhorter, 46 W.Va. 32, 32 S.E. 1004; Haldeman v. Davis, 28 W.Va. 324. The Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of the appeal from the justice, and in entering its ......
-
State v. Bouchelle
...will not lie to prevent or correct its merely erroneous judgment. County Court v. Boreman, 34 W.Va. 362, 12 S.E. 490; Haldeman v. Davis, 28 W.Va. 324; McConiha v. Guthrie, 21 W.Va. 134; Buskirk v. Judge of Circuit Court, 7 W.Va. 91. See also Code, 1931, 53-1-1; State v. Hudson, 93 W.Va. 209......