State ex rel. Mason v. LaUghlin

Decision Date28 October 1879
Citation7 Mo.App. 529
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. MASON v. HENRY D. LAUGHLIN, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

1. Only in exceptional cases will an appellate court grant a writ of prohibition against an inferior tribunal which has jurisdiction of the matter in controversy.

2. Where two officers claim the right to execute the processes of the Criminal

Court, that court is constitutionally empowered to determine the question according to law.

3. The officer to whom that court directs its writs will be a de facto officer, and must be respected and obeyed as such.

APPLICATION for writ of prohibition.

Rule discharged.

HARRIS & JOY, for relator.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition in this case sets forth that the relator of plaintiff holds the office of marshal of the city of St. Louis, and as such is the executive officer of the St. Louis Criminal Court, and that he executed the process of said court until the ___ day of September, 1879, at which date the defendant, judge of said court, refused to allow relator to act as the executive officer of said court, and intends, on the opening of his court on October 13, 1879, to further violate the legal rights and interfere with the franchise of relator by appointing John Finn to attend upon the sessions of said court and execute all its process. Relator prays a writ of prohibition directed to Judge Laughlin, prohibiting him from making the contemplated order.

We take judicial notice of the fact that John Finn is the acting sheriff of the city of St. Louis. The object of this proceeding is manifestly to obtain thus a judicial determination of the question whether, under the existing law, the sheriff or the marshal is the proper officer to execute the process of the St. Louis Criminal Court.

The issuing of the writ of prohibition, the writ not being one of absolute right, rests largely in the discretion of the court. The object of the writ being to check the usurpation of inferior tribunals, the rule is that the court will refuse it where the tribunal has jurisdiction of the matter in controversy. In some extraordinary cases only will it be granted, where the court, though not entirely devoid of jurisdiction, has exceeded its powers. The power of granting the writ is to be exercised with great caution; and to issue it when the other remedies are applicable, would be useless and offensive exercise of the authority of the superior tribunal. United States v. Hoffman, 4...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. McGaughey v. Grayston
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1942
    ... ... 55; State v ... Bratton, 253 S.W. 706; Fekete v. East St ... Louis, 145 N.E. 692; Lowe v. State, 201 S.W ... 986; State v. Mason, 135 So. 809; Bishop v ... State ex rel., 48 N.E. 1058; People v. Leonard, ... 14 P. 853; Foltz v. Kerlin, 4 N.E. 439; 22 R. C. L., ... P. & P. 386-387; State v. St. Louis Perpetual ... Marine, etc., Ins. Co., 8 Mo. 330; State v ... Stone, 25 Mo. 555; State v. Laughlin, 7 Mo.App ... 529; 50 C. J. 692; 22 R. C. L. 17, sec. 15; State v ... Dawson, 333 Mo. 673, 63 S.W.2d 135; State ex rel ... Blue v. Waldo, ... ...
  • Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Woodson
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1905
    ...been overruled by that court, a perfect remedy by appeal existed. Wand v. Ryan, 166 Mo. 646; State v. Heige, 39 Mo.App. 49; State v. Laughlin, 7 Mo.App. 529; State Wood, 155 Mo. 425; State v. Anthony, 65 Mo.App. 543; State v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59; State v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 1. (2) Until the ......
  • State v. Zumbunson
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1879
  • State ex rel. Jones v. LaUghlin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1881
    ...restrain an inferior tribunal from doing some act in excess of its jurisdiction. Wilson v. Berkstresser, 45 Mo. 283, 285; The State ex rel. v. Laughlin, 7 Mo. App. 529; Ex parte Peterson, 33 Ala. 74; Ex parte Greene, 29 Ala. 52; The State ex rel. v. Judge, 29 La. An. 806; Ex parte Hamilton,......

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