Little v. Broxon

• Decision Date: 11 February 1918
• Citation: 31 Idaho 303,170 P. 918
• Parties: ANDREW LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. C. O. BROXON, State Insurance Manager, Defendant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

170 P. 918

31 Idaho 303

ANDREW LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. C. O. BROXON, State Insurance Manager, Defendant

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 11, 1918

APPLICATION for writ of prohibition.

Demurrer to petition sustained, alternative writ quashed and peremptory writ denied.

Demurrer sustained, the alternative writ of prohibition quashed and peremptory writ denied. Costs awarded to defendant.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION.

Where a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law exists, the writ of prohibition is not available.

[As to when a writ of prohibition lies, see notes in 12 Am.Dec. 604; 18 Am.Dec. 238; 111 Am.St. 929]

A. A Fraser, for Plaintiff.

T. A Walters, Attorney General, and A. C. Hindman, Assistant, for Defendant.

William Healy and J. H. Peterson, Amici Curiae.

Counsel cite no authorities on point decided.

MORGAN, J. Budge, C. J., and Rice, J., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

This proceeding was commenced for the purpose of procuring a writ prohibiting defendant, who is state insurance manager, from enforcing, as against plaintiff, who alleges he is an agriculturist engaged in the business of farming and stock-raising, the provisions of chap. 81, Sess. Laws 1917, p. 252, commonly known as the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Plaintiff contends the act expressly exempts those who are engaged in agricultural pursuits from the necessity of insuring their employees, and that his workmen, who are herders and camp-tenders, are not included within its provisions. He alleges in his petition, among other things, that defendant, as insurance manager, has demanded of him that he procure insurance, as required by the act above cited, for the benefit of his employees, and has threatened to, and will, commence an action for the purpose of collecting a penalty from him, and will enjoin him from carrying on his business, in the event of his failure so to do.

The defendant demurred to the petition upon the ground among others, that it does not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief asked for. The cause has been heard upon the petition and demurrer.

This court has repeatedly held that neither the writ of prohibition nor mandate, of which it is the counterpart (sec 4994, Rev. Codes), is available where a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law exists. Among the more recent cases to that effect are Olden v. Paxton, 27 Idaho 597, 150 P. 40; Lewis v. Mt. Home Co-op. Irr. Co., 28 Idaho 682, 156 P. 419; Fraser v. Davis, 29 Idaho 70, 156 P. 913, 158 P. 233; New First Nat. Bank v. City of Weiser, 30 Idaho 15, 166 P. 213; St. Michael's Monastery v. Steele, 30 Idaho 609,...