State ex rel. Leblanc v. Henry

• Decision Date: 01 November 1889
• Docket Number: 10399
• Citation: 6 So. 807,41 La.Ann. 908
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. JULES LEBLANC AND DESIRE RICHARD v. ANDREW HENRY, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF THE FIFTH WARD, PARISH OF ACADIA

6 So. 807

41 La.Ann. 908

THE STATE EX REL. JULES LEBLANC AND DESIRE RICHARD v. ANDREW HENRY, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF THE FIFTH WARD, PARISH OF ACADIA

No. 10399

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 1, 1889

APPLICATION for Prohibition and Certiorari.

J. E Barry, for the relators.

OPINION

WATKINS J.

Relators are the defendants in the suit of Francis T. Nicholls, Governor, against them, which is pending in the respondent's court, wherein demand is made for $ 100, which demand is grounded on the alleged forfeiture of a certain peace bond signed by LeBlanc as principal and Richard as surety in solido.

They assign three grounds for relief by prohibition, viz:

1st. That the amount of the principal of the bond, and the cost of the proceedings in which it was taken, aggregate a sum in excess of $ 100' and which are both virtually involved in said suit, and that in entertaining jurisdiction thereof, the respondent has transcended the bounds of his jurisdiction.

2d. That in the matter of taking peace bonds the powers of justices of the peace are confined to those exercised by them, when acting as committing magistrates.

3d. That if the respondent has jurisdiction in the premises, the suit was incorrectly brought in the name of the Governor of the State.

Repondent excepts to this proceeding and declines the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that it has no appellate jurisdiction of the subject matter of the litigation in his court, and for that reason it cannot entertain the writ of prohibition; and, in the alternative avers that his court had full and complete jurisdiction of said suit on relators' bond; but that if, in fact it had not, relators have not tendered and filed any exception to his want of jurisdiction, and not having exhausted his remedy he is without right to claim a writ of prohibition.

The exception of respondent is not well taken, because district courts, having appellate jurisdiction over causes brought up for review, from justice courts, have no power to issue writs of prohibition, etc., as this court has. We had occasion to say recently that "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 district court, or a circuit court...