Conkling v. De Lany
Citation | 91 N.W.2d 250,167 Neb. 4 |
Decision Date | 27 June 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 34373,34373 |
Parties | Donald G. CONKLING, Ora Spence and Norman C. Jensen, Appellants, v. Alma K. DE LANY, Justice of the Peace, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The common law writ of prohibition is available to litigants in this state and jurisdiction to grant the same is lodged in the district courts thereof.
2. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ, issued by a superior court to an inferior judicial tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction, either by prohibiting it from assuming jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no control, or from exceeding its legitimate powers in a matter of which it has jurisdiction.
3. Ordinarily prohibition cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies provided by law are adequate and available as it is not intended to be a substitute therefor.
4. However, the function of the writ has been extended to cover situations where, even though the inferior tribunal has jurisdiction, the superior court deems it necessary and advisable to issue the writ to prevent palable and irremediable injustice, especially when it appears there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or therwise to prevent such from occurring.
5. Every person accused of crime should have a fair and impartial trial.
6. A party has a right to have his case heard and determined by a judge who is not disqualified by interest from hearing and determining it.
7. Prohibition may, in the court's discretion, be granted in a proper case where the remedy by appeal or error is not adequate and, in this respect, each case must depend upon its own facts.
Beatty, Clarke, Murphy & Morgan, Donald W. Pederson, Frank E. Piccolo, Jr., James E. Schneider, North Platte, for appellants.
Donald V. Lowe, J. G. McIntosh, North Platte, for appellee.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, WENKE and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
This is an appeal from the district court for Lincoln County. It involves the question of whether or not a writ of prohibition should be issued against Alma K. DeLany, a justice of the peace. The trial court denied the appellants such relief by dismissing the action and they have taken this appeal therefrom after their motion for new trial had been overruled.
Nebraska has, with certain limitations and restrictions not applicable here, adopted the common law of England. See § 49-101, R.R.S.1943. Consequently the common law writ of prohibition is available to litigants in this state and jurisdiction to grant the same is lodged in the district courts thereof. See State ex rel. Wright v. Barney, 133 Neb. 676, 276 N.W. 676.
However, with regard to our adoption of the common law of England we said, in Williams v. Miles, 68 Neb. 463, 94 N.W. 705, 708, 96 N.W. 151, 62 L.R.A. 383, 110 Am.St.Rep. 431, that: And in State ex rel. Johnson v. Tautges, Rerat & Welch, 146 Neb. 439, 20 N.W.2d 232, 234, we held: 'The common law is not immutable but flexible, and by its own principles adapts itself to varying conditions.'
In State ex rel. Wright v. Barney, supra [133 Neb. 676, 276 N.W. 682], by quoting from High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies (3d Ed.) 705, we said: See, also, 73 C.J.S. Prohibition § 2 b, p. 13; State ex rel. Micheel v. Vamos, 144 Ohio St. 628, 60 60 N.E.2d 305; Marsh v. Goldthorpe, 123 Ohio St. 103, 174 N.E. 246; State ex rel. Burtzlaff v. Vickery, 121 Ohio St. 49, 166 N.E. 894; State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, 86 Okl.Cr. 364, 193 P.2d 594; State ex rel. Wester v. Caldwell, 84 Okl.Cr. 334, 181 P.2d 843; Harrison v. Murphy, 132 Fla. 579, 181 So. 386; State ex rel. Rheinauer v. Malone, 40 Fla. 129, 23 So. 575; 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, s. 6, p. 142. In State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, supra [86 Okl.Cr. 334, 181 P.2d 601], by quoting from Rose v. Arnold, 183 Okl. 286, 82 P.2d 293, the court said: "'Prohibition' is an extraordinary judicial writ issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the limits and bounds prescribed for them by law, and its use in proper cases should be upheld and encouraged, since it is of vital importance to the due administration of justice that every tribunal vested with judicial functions should be confined to the exercise of those powers with which it has been by law intrusted." And, as stated in Van Dyke v Superior Court of Gila County, 24 Ariz. 508, 211 P. 576, 580, by quoting language from In re Rice, 155 U.S. 402, 15 S.Ct. 152, 39 L.Ed. 201: See, also, 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, s. 7, p. 143; Redewill v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 43 Ariz. 68, 29 P.2d 475.
In State ex rel. Wright v. Barney, supra, we went on to say, by quoting from 21 Standard Encyclopedia of Procedure, 801, that: "The writ of prohibition (in modern practice) is an extraordinary writ, issued by a superior court to an inferior judicial tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction, either by prohibiting it from assuming jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no control, or from exceeding its legitimate powers in a matter of which it has jurisdiction."
It is the general rule that prohibition cannot be resorted to when ordinary and usual remedies provided by law are adequate and available as it is not intended to be a substitute therefor. See, 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, s. 8, p. 144; 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, s. 7, p. 143; State ex rel. Rheinauer v. Malone, supra; State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, supra; State ex rel. Burtzlaff v. Vickery, supra; State ex rel. Brickell v. Roach, 122 Ohio St. 117, 170 N.E. 866; State v. Vamos, supra; Harrison v. Murphy, supra; Eberhardt v. Barker, 104 Fla. 535, 140 So. 633; Van Dyke v. Superior Court of Gila County, supra; Keefe v. District Court of Carbon County, 16 Wyo. 381, 94 P. 459; Jesmer Co. v. Wurdemann-Hjelm Corp., 250 Minn. 574, 85 N.W.2d 207; Bellows v. Ericson, 233 Minn. 320, 46 N.W.2d 654. As stated in Harrison v. Murphy, supra [132 Fla. 579, 181 So. 389], by quoting from 22 R.C.L., s. 22, p. 23: However, the function of the writ, as evidenced by many cases herein cited, has been extended to cover situations where, even though the inferior tribunal had jurisdiction, the superior court deemed it necessary and advisable to issue the writ to prevent palpable and irremediable injustice, especially when it appeared there existed no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise to prevent it from occurring. See, State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, supra; 73 C.J.S. Prohibition § 4, p. 15; Harris Foundation v. District Court of Pottawatomie County, 196 Okl. 222, 163 P.2d 976, 162 A.L.R. 272; Harrison v. Murphy, supra; 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, s. 8, p. 144; 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, s. 9, p. 145. As stated in State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, supra, by quoting from Harris Foundation v. District Court of Pottawatomie County, supra: "Prohibition is the proper remedy where an inferior tribunal assumes to exercise judicial power not granted by law, or is attempting to make an unauthorized application of judicial force, and the writ will not be withheld because other concurrent remedies exist; it not appearing that such remedies are equally adequate and convenient."
The record shows that on July 29, 1954, Elmer L. Moore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Anaya v. Scarborough
...accord with our decision in State ex rel. De Moss v. District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, supra. See also, Conkling v. De Lany, 167 Neb. 7, 91 N.W.2d 250; State ex rel. Jones v. Gay, 65 Wash. 629, 119 P. 830. We perceive our duty under our power of superintending control is to mak......
-
Thomas v. Justice Court of Washakie County
...or other bond in any material amount could present a problem that might result in her incarceration. We think that Conkling v. De Lany, 167 Neb. 4, 91 N.W.2d 250 (1958) is pertinent on the question whether we should exercise jurisdiction. In that case contention was made in the district cou......
-
Fugate v. Ronin
...The writ of prohibition, and under what circumstances a litigant is entitled thereto, is fully set out and discussed in Conkling v. DeLany, Neb., 91 N.W.2d 250. See, also, State ex rel. Wright v. Barney, 133 Neb. 676, 276 N.W. At all times herein material appellee was the duly elected, qual......
-
State of Nebraska v. Finch
...In addition, several statutes of the State of Nebraska regulate practice in the courts of justices of the peace. See, Conkling v. DeLany, 167 Neb. 4, 91 N.W.2d 250 (1958). It is the duty of the justice of the peace to administer the laws of the State of Nebraska. Their practice is to be uni......
-
Neb. Const. art. I § I-3 Due Process of Law; Equal Protection
...N.W.2d 459 (1960). Prosecution before a judge disqualified by pecuniary interest is a violation of due process of law. Conkling v. DeLany, 167 Neb. 4, 91 N.W.2d 250 Provision for service of process upon Director of Banking in action for violation of Installment Loan Act was constitutional. ......