Case ID: ny-sup-ct_12/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Davis, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of ALEXANDER CAMERON, for a Writ of Prohibition against HENRY A. FROST, GEORGE P. HEIM, PHILIP BROCK, GEORGE M. MITTNACHT, HENRY WILKINS, Appellant, THE MARINE COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and THE CITY COURT OF BROOKLYN.
    
      Writ of prohibition — practice—when does not conform to statute.-
    
    Appeal from an order of Special Term, granting a writ of prohibition. .
    This was an application to the court at Special Term, at chambers, for a writ of prohibition, to be issued against the several parties and courts named in the above title. The motion seems to have been brought to a hearing upon the affidavit upon which the order to show cause was granted, and the affidavit of Henry A. Frost, one of the parties named in the order, together with the pleadings in an action pending in the City Court of Brooklyn, at the suit of George P. Heim, against Alexander Cameron and others. The papers do not show that the order to show cause why the writ of prohibition should not issue, was served upon either the Marine Court of the city of New York, or the City Court of Brooklyn; nor was any return made by either of these courts ; nor was there any appearance on behalf of either of them. An order was granted by the court that an absolute writ of prohibition issue, directed to both of said courts, ándito the several parties above named, commanding the said parties' to desist and refrain from any further proceedings in two certain actions, pending in said courts and mentioned in the moving papers. The court at General Term held, that the practice in this ease was altogether irregular, and not in conformity to the provisions of the statute which are found on pages 609, 610, volume 2 of Edmonds’ edition, sections 61, 62, 64, 65, and ordered that the order be reversed, and all proceedings subsequent to the order to show cause set aside, with costs of appeal besides disbursements, and that the court be directed to proceed with the application in conformity to the statutes above referred to.
    
      H. Willems, appellant, in person.
   Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

DaNibls and Beady, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, and proceedings directed in accordance with opinion.