Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Macklin v. Rombauer

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1891PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Read the full summary

Prohibition. (1) A preliminary rule of prohibition may be properly issued by a judge in vacation. Lloyd on Prohibition, ch. 9, secs. 1, 2, 3 ; Iveson v. Harris, 7 Yes. 251 ; 4 Inst. 81; Mayo v. James, 12 Gratt. 17; Ex parte Ray, 45 Ala. 15; Ex parte Boothe, 64 Ala. 312; High oh Extra. Rem., sec. 785; Addison on Torts [Wood’s'Ed. 1881] sec. 1462; Const. Mo., art. 6, secs. 3, 12; Const. Mo., secs. 5, 8, amendment to art. 6; Stale ex rel. v. Weeks, 93 Mo. 499. (2) The court of appeals has no final or conclusive jurisdiction in cases involving the construction of the constitution of the state of…

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

— The question now involved in this case has received our consideration, and we adopt the opinion of Barclay, J., as the opinion of this court sitting in banc, and order judgment to be entered accordingly.

*621We will add that our attention has been called to the statement made by Lloyd in his work on prohibition, page 5, as follows: “ A writ of prohibition must be moved for in open court, and a judge at chambers has no power to grant it either in term or vacation.” It is evident Mr. Lloyd here refers to the practice in the courts of common law, for on page 4 of the same work he uses this…

2Cited by19 opinions

Glaser v. RothschildSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
State ex rel. United Railways Co. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
State ex rel. School District v. HarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
State ex rel. Sale v. NortoniSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
State Ex Rel. Davidson v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.