EX PARTE FERRY COMPANY
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is, in all its material facts, like that of Ex parte Gordon, supra, p. 515. It matters not that the amount demanded in the libel is less than $5,000, and that consequently no appeal will lie to this court. An appeal will lie to the Circuit Court in favor of the libellant if he is defeated, and in favor of the respondent if the recovery exceeds $50. It is no ground for relief by prohibition that provision has’ not been made for a review of the decision of the court of original jurisdiction, by appeal or otherwise. A prohibition cannot be made to perform the office of a proceeding for the correction of mere errors-and irregularities. If there is jurisdiction, and no provision for appeal or writ of error, the judgment of the trial court is the judgment of'the court of last resort, and concludes the parties. It rests with Congress to decide whether a case shall be reviewed or not.
Writ denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crill v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 96 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1928)…risdiction. The absence of adequate remedy by appeal or writ of error is not of itself sufficient ground to authorize a writ of prohibition, provided the court has jurisdiction. 23 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, 211; Ex Parte Detroit River Ferry Company, 104 U. S. 519, 26 Law ed., 815. But we apprehend that the fears entertained by the applicants here that in ease of an adverse decision by the court below they would be without adequate remedy for review, are largely imaginary. See Spafford v. Brevard County, 110…
-
Ex parte in the Matter of the State of N.Y., 256 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1921)
-
Smith v. Whitney & Others, 116 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1886)…er expressly conferred upon it by Congress to issue writs of prohibition to the District Courts sitting as gourts of admiralty ; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68; Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515 ; Ex parte Ferry Co., 104 U. S. 519; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174; as well as by the courts of England and of the several States, in the exercise of their inherent jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to courts martial. Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. 69; State v. Wakely, 2 Not…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence