Holmes v. Board of Sup'rs of Forrest County

Decision Date25 February 1946
Docket Number36044.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesHOLMES et al. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FORREST COUNTY, et al.

E J. Currie and Dudley W. Conner, both of Hattiesburg, for appellants.

Geo. W. Currie, of Hattiesburg, for appellees.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

Appellants operate a restaurant or cafe outside the municipality of Hattiesburg in Forrest County in which they are licensed to sell beer. The board of supervisors, pursuant to the authority of Code 1942, Section 10224, as amended by Chapter 133 of the Laws of 1944, forbade the sale of beer throughout the county, save within municipal limits, between the hours of 11 p. m. Saturday until 8 a. m. Monday.

Appellants sought by a petition for writ of prohibition to forbid the enforcement against them of such order by the board and by the sheriff. The validity of the order is thus attacked. The order was sought to be justified by a finding that such action was taken on account of general conditions prevailing in Forrest County, including conditions incident to the war and the military effort; 'it will promote the public health, morals and safety * * *.' While the invalidity of an order or statute is a factor in adjudging absence of jurisdiction in a judicial officer to enforce same, the sole function of the writ is to restrain judicial action against the petitioner. The increasing tendency to seek such remedial aid in unwarranted cases admonishes us to restrain in turn the improper extension of its application. The writ of prohibition is extraordinary and remedial and may issue only from a court of original jurisdiction and lies only to control an inferior court or tribunal in the attempted exercise of judicial powers in excess of its jurisdiction. Crittenden v. Town of Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723, 131 Am.St.Rep. 518; Glover v. City Council of Columbus, 132 Miss. 776, 96 So. 521; Alexander v Graves, 178 Miss. 583, 173 So. 417; City of Greenwood v Humphrey & Co., 182 Miss. 91, 179 So. 862, 181 So. 517; Planters Inc. Co. v. Cramer, 47 Miss. 200; Wynne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 105 Miss. 784, 66 So. 411; Blount v. Kerley, 180 Miss. 863, 178 So. 591; Downing v. Davis, D.C.Miss., 34 F.Supp. 872; 42 Am.Jur., Prohibition, § 3; 50 C.J., Prohibition, §§ 1, 13.

The writ here is not sought to restrain either the board nor the sheriff from any judicial action. Neither defendant was capable of, nor undertook as such to, prosecute appellants so that neither their jurisdiction so to do, nor the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Fordice, In re, 96-M-00114-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 13, 1997
    ...any "judicial or quasi-judicial officer" in exercise of this Court's "original jurisdiction." Petitioner cites Holmes v. Board of Supervisors, 199 Miss. 363, 24 So.2d 867 (1946); Owens v. Reese, 203 Miss. 322, 33 So.2d 834 (1948); and Fanning v. Town of Hickory, 201 Miss. 620, 30 So.2d 65 (......
  • Moffett, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 31, 1990
    ...Downing v. Davis, 34 F.Supp. 872 (D.C.Miss.1940); Wynne v. Illinois C.R. Co., 108 Miss. 376, 66 So. 410 (1914); Holmes v. Forrest County, 199 Miss. 363, 24 So.2d 867 (1946); Owens v. Reese, 203 Miss. 322, 33 So.2d 834 (1948); Planters Insurance Co. v. Cramer, 47 Miss. 200 (1872). In State v......
  • Petition of Green Mountain Post No. 1., American Legion, Dept. of Vt., 1765
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 2, 1950
    ...Court of Fayette County, 55 W.Va. 689, 48 S.E. 205; In re Thomas, 26 Ont.Rep. 448; Holmes v. Board of Supervisors of Forrest County, 199 Miss. 363, 24 So.2d 867; Hayes v. Trustees of City of Oceanside, 6 Cal.App. 520, 92 P. 492; State ex rel. Richland County v. City Council of Columbia, 16 ......
  • In re Petition of Green Mountain Post No. 1
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • May 2, 1950
    ...... PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, Washington County. . .          . The petition is dismissed and ... execution of the order of the Vermont Liquor Control Board is. vacated. . .          N. Henry Press and ... S.E. 205; In Re Thomas, 26 Ont. Rep. 448;. Holmes et al v. Board of Supervisors of Forrest. County, 199 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT