Mastin v. Sloan
| Decision Date | 20 May 1889 |
| Citation | 98 Mo. 252,11 S.W. 558 |
| Parties | MASTIN v. SLOAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
On dissolution of a temporary injunction, in an action by an administrator, defendant moved for an assessment of damages on the injunction bond. During the proceedings a new administrator was substituted, and the surety on the bond moved for a writ of prohibition from proceeding further with the motion for damages, on the ground that the original suit abated, and the jurisdiction of the court terminated. Held, that the writ should be denied, as any error of the court in respect to its jurisdiction may be corrected on appeal or writ of error.
On petition for writ of prohibition.
Plaintiff is surety on a bond filed in the circuit court on the making of a temporary restraining order in the suit of Nolan, administrator, against Jones. The principal in the bond is Nolan, as administrator, plaintiff in that proceeding. Afterwards the temporary injunction was dissolved. Defendant Jones then filed a motion for an assessment of damages upon the bond, (sustained by reason of the restraining order,) in pursuance of the Missouri statute. Rev. St, 1879, § 2712. That motion is now pending in the trial court. During the proceedings the circuit court made certain orders, the purpose of which was to substitute one Bell, administrator, as plaintiff in the stead of Nolan, administrator. The particulars of those orders are not now material here. The court's action in that regard is claimed by Mastin, the present petitioner for a writ of prohibition, to have had the effect of terminating the jurisdiction of the trial court over the pending motion for damages on the injunction bond. The contention is that the original suit has abated, and that the court should be prohibited from proceeding further with it.
Boggess & Moore and T. A. Frank Jones, for petitioner. Graves & Aull and J. D. Shewalter, for defendants.
BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts as above.)
This is plainly no case for the issue of a writ of prohibition. Should the trial court enter a finding and judgment for damages against petitioner and the other sureties on the injunction bond, any one of them aggrieved may review that result by appeal or writ of error, on taking proper steps to that end. Any error that court may make in determining the proper limits of its jurisdiction in the premises can be effectively corrected by any of the usual modes of reviewing judgments. The writ of prohibition should issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stobie
...Such mistake may be reviewed as other errors; For example, by appeal, but not by a proceeding like this"—Citing Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252, 11 S. W. 558. In State ex rel. v. Scarritt, 128 Mo. 331, 30 S. W. 1026, it was again announced by this court: "The writ of prohibition may be invoked ......
-
State v. Wood
...court; and, this being the case, the writ of prohibition will not lie, and was, in the first place, improvidently issued. Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252, 11 S. W. 558. This is but the announcement of a familiar principle of law, which is conceded by all and denied by none. But, even if the que......
-
State ex rel. Abeille Fire Ins. Co. v. Sevier
...the relators due process of law. The point made cannot be tried out in prohibition. State ex rel. Hyde v. Westhues, 316 Mo. 457; Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252; Ry. Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230; State ex rel. v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256; State ex rel. v. Hartman, 300 S.W. 1054. (6) The court properl......
-
The State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie
... ... Such mistake may be ... reviewed as other errors; for example, by appeal, but not by ... a proceeding like this." Citing Mastin v ... Sloan, 98 Mo. 252, 11 S.W. 558. In State ex rel. v ... Scarritt, 128 Mo. 331, 30 S.W. 1026, it was again ... announced by this court: " ... ...