State v. Whitaker
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The defendants applied for a writ of prohibition to issue to Thomas Badger, Mayor of the city of Raleigh, upon the ground that the city ordinance for the violation of which they were being tried was invalid and because a trial by jury had been refused them.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
The writ of prohibition existed at common law and is also authorized by the constitutional provision (Art. IV, sec. 8) which gives the Supreme Court “power to issue any remedial writs necessary to give it a general supervision and control over the proceedings of the inferior Courts.” In this State this writ can issue only from the Supreme Court. Perry v. Shepherd, 78 N. C., 83.
The writ of prohibition is the converse of mandamus. It prohibits action, while mandamus compels action. It differs from an injunction, which enjoins a party to the *820action from doing the forbidden act, while…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Walker v. SauvinetSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Quimbo Appo v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Thomas v. MeadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- State v. . MossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1854
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State v. NormanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Holly Shelter Railroad v. NewtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- State v. . InmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- Mountain Retreat Ass'n v. Mount Mitchell Development Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.