ALEXANDER
v.
CROLLOTT, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alexander sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a New Mexico Justice of the Peace from proceeding in a forcible entry and detainer case, claiming the justice lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ, holding that prohibition is unavailable when an adequate alternative remedy exists, and that Alexander should have appealed to the District Court as provided by New Mexico law rather than seeking prohibition, even if the judgment was void.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brown,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
Although a writ of prohibition will lie to an inferior court, when it is acting-manifestly beyond its jurisdiction, such writ will issue only where there is no other remedy. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495; In re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 403; In re New York &c. Steamship Company, 155 U. S. 523, 531.
By his answer Alexander claimed to be the owner of the property, and alleged a want of jurisdiction on the part of the Justice to determine the question of ownership in a proceeding for forcible entry and detainer. The Justice decided against him. Under such circumstances he should have taken an appeal to the District Court under section 3358 of the New Mexican, code, which provides that “An appeal shall be allowed to the District Court in all cases wherein judgment may be hereafter rendered in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or both.” No reason is apparent why this appeal was not taken.
The fact that' the judgment may have been void will not pre- ‘ vent its-reversal upon appeal,. Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 126; Kempe’s Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 173; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 473, 518, 566; M. C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; Mexican &c. R. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U. S. 201, 208; Jordan v. Dennis, 7 Met. 590; Waters v. Randall, 8 Met. 132; Striker v. Mott, 6 Wend. 465; Langford v. Monteith, 102 U. S. 145, nor does the requirement of a. bond obviate the necessity of an appeal. It is one of the ordinary incidents of litigation.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (48 total)
-
State v. The R.R. Comm'rs of the State of Fla., 79 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1920)…ot a writ of right; but it is an extraordinary judicial writ, that in proper cases may be issued to restrain the unlawful exercise of judicial functions when no other adequate remedy is afforded by law. 22 R. C. L. p. 4 et seq; Alexander v. Crollot, 199 U. S. 580. While a writ off prohibition may issue in a proper case to restrain an unauthorized' or illegal judicial or gwa&i-judicial act, such a writ may not be issued to restrain a legislative or gwsfi-legislative or a purely administrative or ministerial…
-
Saco-Lowell Shops v. Reynolds, 141 F.2d 587 (4th Cir. 1944)…eld to be invalid, and irrespective of whether or not certain features of the invention may be found in the prior art. Controlling in this aspect of the case is the decision in Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 199 U.S. 581, 586—588, 26 S.Ct. 150, 152, 50 L.Ed. 317, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, laid down the applicable rule in the following language: “The real questions in the case are whether the first-mentioned Morrow device and the subsequent E 10 fall within the scope of t…
-
Perma Research & Dev. v. The Singer Co., 542 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1976)…(S.D.N.Y. 1971) , or “good faith”. Mechanical Ice Tray Corp. v. General Motors Corp., supra, 144 F. 2d at 725. Thus, courts have not required the transferee to enter into a hopeless contest, Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 199 U.S. 581, 26 S.Ct. 150, 50 L.Ed. 317 (1905), to resort to “any means whatever” to produce royalty for the transferor, Tibbetts Contracting Corp. v. O & E Contracting Co., 15 N.Y.2d 324, 337, 258 N.Y.S.2d 400, 206 N.E. 2d 340 (1965), or to manufacture and sell “come what may”. Parev Pro…
Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mansfield v. Swan & Another, 111 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1884)
- Lathrop L. Sturgis v. Honold, 19 How. 393 (U.S. 1856)
- Smith v. Whitney & Others, 116 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1886)
- In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1892)
- In re Rice, 155 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1894)
- Mexican Nat'l R.R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1895)
- In re NEW York & Porto RICO S.S. Co., 155 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1895)
- Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch 173 (U.S. 1809)
- Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1880)