State ex rel. Hirsch v. The Judge of Nineteenth Judicial District

• Decision Date: 03 January 1887
• Docket Number: 9847
• Citation: 39 La.Ann. 97,1 So. 281
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. MRS. HIRSCH, WIFE, v. THE JUDGE OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE FOR THE SIXTH WARD, PARISH OF ST. MARY

1 So. 281

39 La.Ann. 97

THE STATE EX REL. MRS. HIRSCH, WIFE, v. THE JUDGE OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE FOR THE SIXTH WARD, PARISH OF ST. MARY

No. 9847

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 3, 1887

APPLICATION for Prohibition, Mandamus and Certiorari.

B. F Winchester for the Relatrix.

P. H Mentz for the Respondents.

OPINION

BERMUDEZ C. J.

This is a proceeding against a district judge and a justice of the peace, charging the former with usurpation of authority and the latter with denial of justice.

The relatrix complains that the district judge has issued a prohibition, forbidding the justice from trying a suit instituted before him, by her, the object of which was to prevent a third party from taking possession of a house of which she claims to be the owner.

She further complains that she has called upon said justice to proceed with the trial of said suit; but that he declined to do so, in consequence of the prohibition issued against him.

The relatrix charges that said district judge had no jurisdiction to issue the prohibition; that it was not binding on the justice, who ought to be ordered to proceed to determine her case.

She accordingly prays for a certiorari to test the validity of the proceedings thus had, that those had before the district court be annulled and the said court prohibited from interfering with the justice, and that the latter be commanded to try her suit.

The facts do not appear to be disputed by the respondents.

The district judge in his answer admits them. He insists that the justice had no jurisdiction and that he accordingly was right in issuing the prohibition. The justice in his return pleads the prohibition in justification of his conduct.

The questions are of law only.

Article 90 of the present Constitution vests this Court with control and general supervision over all inferior courts, and with power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and other remedial writs.

The Constitution does not confer similar supervisory jurisdiction on any other court, whether it be a district court or a circuit court; although it vests the other appellate courts with the power to issue like writs in aid of their appellate jurisdiction.

Those courts have therefore no power to issue any of those writs, when not in aid of their appellate jurisdiction.

In a case in which a certiorari had been asked, the city judge pleaded to our jurisdiction, asserting that he was amenable only to the district court, to which appeals from his judgments could be taken.

We there held, in a considered opinion, that this Court has exclusive...