Hammond Lumber Co. v. United States District Court for District of Oregon

(after stating the facts as above). [1] We are inclined to the view that the allegations of the petition are insufficient to show ground for the writ of prohibition, for it does not appear therefrom that the District Court of Oregon has ruled upon, or has had the opportunity to rule upon, the question of its own jurisdiction. While the Hammond Dumber Company has filed in that court its exceptions to the jurisdiction, the exceptions have not been brought on for hearing. In Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167 , 6 Sup. Ct. 570, 29 L. Ed. 601 , it was said:

And elsewhere in the same opinion it was said that where the inferior court—

That rule has been reaffirmed. In re Rice, 155 U. S. 396 , 15 Sup. Ct. 149, 39 L. Ed. 198 ; In re New York, etc., Steamship Co., 155 U. S. 523 , 15 Sup. Ct. 183, 39 L. Ed. 246 ; In re Huguley Mfg. Co., 184 U. S. 297 , 22 Sup. Ct. 455, 46 L. Ed. 549 ; Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191 , 31 Sup. Ct. 426, 55 L. Ed. 431 . It does not appear, therefore, that the petitioner has no other remedy than prohibition. For aught that the petition shows to the contrary, the District Court for Oregon will, when its attention is directed to the exceptions, deny its…