Bullard v. Thorpe
Supreme Court of Vermont
Petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the petitionees from proceeding with certain suits against the petitioner. Returnable to and heard at the May term, 1894, upon petition, answer and proofs. The opinion states the case. Justices cannot manufacture jurisdiction by dividing an indivisible cause of action, and if they attempt it, may be restrained. High Exrt. Leg. Rem., s. 778.
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
This is the first instance in this state, within our knowledge, of a petition for a writ of prohibition. No mention is made of one in our reports and it is first mentioned in legislation in the revision of 1839, when the supreme court was given power to grant one. That provision still exists in R. L., s. 782. The writ may issue if “necessary to the furtherance of justice and the regular execution of the laws.” The proceedings to obtain one are regulated by R. L., Ch. 74. The object of the writ in this jurisdiction can be accomplished generally by appeal, exception, or writ of error. One never…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Secor v. . SturgisNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Quimbo Appo v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Farrington v. PayneNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Miller v. CovertNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Burritt v. BelfySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Leonard v. WillcoxSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- Foley v. HamSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
- State ex rel. Boston & Montana Consol. C. & S. Mining Co. v. Second Judicial District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- Barber v. ChaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
- McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1925
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.