Maurer

Maurer v. Mitchell

Good Law
53 Cal. 289
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1878No. 6140California653 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

At the common law the writ of prohibition was issued on the suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising therein, did not belong to the inferior jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other Court. It was an original remedial writ, provided as a remedy for encroachment of jurisdiction. Its office was to restrain subordinate Courts and inferior judicial tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction. (The Spring Valley Water Works v. The City and County of San Francisco, 52 Cal. 111 .)

By the fourth section of the sixth article of the Constitution of the State the Supreme Court has power to issue writs of prohibition. We are all of opinion that the writ mentioned in *292 the Constitution is the writ of prohibition as known to the common law.

Nor does the language of sec. 1102 of the Code of Civil Procedure require of us to hold that the office of the writ has been extended, or that it should now issue in cases in which it could not have been resorted to prior to the statute. The full text of' that section is as follows: “ The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandamus. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.