Wilson v. Berkstresser
Supreme Court of Missouri
Petition for writ of prohibition. I. The office of prohibition is to prevent courts from going beyond their jurisdiction in the exercise of judicial power. (3 Blackst. Com. 112, 113 ; Thomas v. Mead, 36 Mo. 232 ; State ex rel. West et al. v. Clerk County Court et al., 41 Mo. 44 ; Vitt v. Owens et al., 42 Mo. 512.) II.
Read the full summary
Petition for writ of prohibition. I. The office of prohibition is to prevent courts from going beyond their jurisdiction in the exercise of judicial power. (3 Blackst. Com. 112, 113 ; Thomas v. Mead, 36 Mo. 232 ; State ex rel. West et al. v. Clerk County Court et al., 41 Mo. 44 ; Vitt v. Owens et al., 42 Mo. 512.) II. The whole subject of establishing, changing, and vacating public roads is placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the County Court, and a mandamus will not lie from the Circuit Court. (County Court v. Round Prairie Township, 10 Mo. 679 ; Yitt v, Owens et al., 42 Mo. 514.)
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiff, as president judge of the County Court of Morgan county, sued out an alternative writ of prohibition, returnable at this term, and, in his petition, charges that the said Rice, as circuit judge of said county, at the suit of said Berkstresser, had issued his writ of mandamus against the justices of the said County Court, commanding them to allow the said Berkstresser the sum of *284eighty-five dollars, and to draw a warrant for the amount upon the county treasurer. It appears that certain parties had presented to the County Court a road petition, of which the following is a copy: “…
2Cited by12 opinions
- McConiha v. GuthrieWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Atwood v. Cox, District JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Walcott v. WellsNevada Supreme Court · 1890
- State Ex Rel. McNamee v. StobieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State ex rel. Johnson v. WithrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.