Davis v. Prunty, (No. 7796)
| Decision Date | 07 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7796) |
| Citation | 114 W.Va. 285 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Guy B. Davis v. Honorable S. 0. Prunty, Judge, et al. |
Prohibition
A party is not entitled to a writ prohibiting a court from assuming jurisdiction in a non-support proceeding upon the ground that some months prior thereto he had been ordered by another court, in a divorce suit, to pay temporary alimony, without alleging a compliance with such order.
Prohibition proceeding by Guy B. Davis against Hon. S. 0. Prunty, Judge of the Circuit Court of Doddridge County, and others.
Writ denied.
J. E. McCulley and F. W. Riggs, for petitioner.
Clyde C. Ware, for respondents.
Guy B. Davis, the defendant in two non-support cases now before the circuit court of Doddridge County on appeal, seeks to invoke prohibition against the judge of said circuit court and the prosecuting attorney from proceeding further in the trial of said appeals, on the ground that the domestic relations court of Cabell County has already assumed, and still retains, jurisdiction of the matters involved.
In his petition, the relator avers that, as a resident of Cabell County, on October 31, 1931, he instituted a divorce proceeding in the domestic relations court of said county, charging his wife with desertion; that the latter appeared in the suit on February 20, 1932, and filed an answer; that thereupon the court, in compliance with the prayer thereof, entered a decree requiring relator, within sixty days to pay his wife $50.00 as suit money, and beginning with February 27, 1932, to pay $5.00 a week as temporary alimony for the support of herself and child; that two warrants were sworn out before a justice of the peace of Doddridge County on November 29, 1932, at the instance of the wife, one for her non-support, the other for that of her child; that judgments were entered requiring payment of a stipulated amount weekly in each case; that an appeal was taken in each case; that upon the calling of said appeal cases for trial defendant appeared in person and by counsel, and filed pleas to the jurisdiction; that demurrers were filed thereto; that the circuit court sustained the demurrers; and that by reason of the foregoing, the circuit court of Doddridge County has no jurisdiction over the matter.
The prosecuting attorney, by counsel, demurred to the petition and rule awarded thereon, and also filed an answer supported by an affidavit of the wife to the effect that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beard v. Worrell
...Hammond v. Worrell, 144 W.Va. 83, 106 S.E.2d 521 (1958). While the respondent does not cite the cases in her brief, Davis v. Prunty, 114 W.Va. 285, 171 S.E. 644 (1933) and Lyons v. Steele, 113 W.Va. 652, 169 S.E. 481 (1933) would appear to hold that equitable defenses are available in actio......
-
State v. Mills
...2 S.E.2d 278 121 W.Va. 205 STATE v. MILLS. No. 8837.Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.March 23, 1939 ... Clifton v. Clifton, 83 W.Va. 149, 152, 98 S.E. 72; ... and Davis v. Prunty, 114 W.Va. 285, 286, 171 S.E ... 644. It is to be supposed ... ...
-
State Of West Va. v. Mills, (No. 8837)
...779. As to the nature and purpose of Code. 48-8-1, see also, Clifton v. Clifton, 83 W. Va. 149, 152, 98 S. E. 72; and Davis v. Prunty, 114 W. Va. 285, 286, 171 S. E. 644. It is to be supposed that the opinions of this Court in the cases of State v. Reed, 107 W. Va. 563, 149 S. E. 669, and S......
-
Plaintiff v. Harmon
...remedy of injunction, it is classed among legal remedies. Lyons v. Steele, 113 W. Va. 652, 653, 169 S. E. 481; Davis v. Prunty, Judge, et al, 114 W. Va. 285, 287, 171 S. E. 644. An historical review of the writ indicates that it has been a common law remedy from an early time. Blackstone wr......