Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Alexander v. Crollott

Alexander v. Crollott, 199 U.S. 580 (1905)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1905-12-18
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Alexander v. Crollott. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
24 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Remedies — Writ of Prohibition A writ of prohibition may issue to an inferior court acting manifestly beyond its jurisdiction, but only where there is no other adequate remedy available. 199 U.S. 580 (citing Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167; In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 495)
  2. Remedies — Mandamus and Appeal The availability of a statutory appeal precludes resort to mandamus; the fact that a judgment may be void does not excuse the failure to appeal, because a void judgment is subject to reversal on appeal. 199 U.S. 580 (citing Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 473)
  3. Remedies — Appeal Bond The requirement of giving a bond on appeal is an ordinary incident of litigation and does not obviate the necessity of taking an available appeal or justify issuing a writ of mandamus. 199 U.S. 580
ALEXANDERv. CROLLOTT,199 U.S. 580(1905)
26 S.Ct. 161
ALEXANDERv. CROLLOTT, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO.
No. 118.
Submitted November 27, 1905.
Decided December 18, 1905.
Although a writ of prohibition will lie to an inferior court acting manifestly beyond its jurisdiction, the writ will issue only where there is no other remedy; and even though the judgment may be void, as that fact does not prevent its reversal on appeal, mandamus cannot be resorted to where the statute gives an appeal. The requirement of giving a bond on appeal is an ordinary incident of litigation and does not obviate the necessity of the appeal and justify the issuing of a writ of mandamus.
THIS is an appeal taken from a judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico quashing a writ of
prohibition issued by that court to the defendant Crollott, a
Justice of the Peace of the County of Bernalillo, which commanded
him to desist and refrain from any further proceedings in five
several actions of forcible entry and detainer, instituted by one
Cleland before said Justice and against Alexander and four other
parties.
An appeal was taken from the ordes quashing the writ to this
court.
Mr. Neill B. Fieldfor appellant.Mr. William B. Childersfor appellee.
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.Smithv.Whitney,116 U.S. 167;In re Cooper,143 U.S. 472,495;Inre Rice,Page 581155 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 prevent its reversal upon appeal,Capronv.Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 126;Kempe's Lesseev.Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 173;Dred Scottv.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;Jordanv.Dennis, 7 Met. 590;Watersv.Randall, 8 Met. 132;Strikerv.Mott, 6 Wend. 465;Langfordv.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.