Case ID: cal-unrep_2/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MANCELLO v. BELLRUDE.
    No. 11,672;
    June 15, 1886.
    11 Pac. 501.
    Prohibition.—Writ of Prohibition Denied on the ground that the proper remedy is by appeal.
    
    Application for writ of prohibition.
    An action was commenced in Justice Bellrude’s court, of Marin county, by the North Pacific Coast Railroad Company against petitioner, Mancello, for forcible detainer. Defendant in that action, by a verified answer, denied any unlawful or forcible detainer, but made other allegations which he claims necessarily involved the question of title and possession to the real property. Defendant, before and during the trial, moved to suspend further proceedings, and to certify the pleadings to the superior court. The justice refused to entertain the motion, proceeded with the trial, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Thereupon defendant made application to the superior court for a writ prohibiting the justice from proceeding further in the cause, or issuing execution or final process therein. The writ was denied. Thereupon defendant filed this petition, alleging want of jurisdiction on the part of the justice, and that he had already exceeded his powers in the cause, and that unless he be restrained he will issue and cause execution and final process ejecting defendant from the premises.
    W. W. Fitz Maurice for petitioner.
    
      
       Cited in Havemeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 398, 24 Pac. 139, where it is said appeal was a complete and adequate remedy in the cited ease, whereas in the citing case it would have afforded none, on account of the irreparable damage that might have occurred meantime; wherefore the necessity of a writ of prohibition.
      Cited and approved in Campbell v. Durand (Utah), 115 Pac. 989, where the court say: “It is manifest that the writ of prohibition cannot be employed to undo a thing already done, though done in excess of jurisdiction. Prohibition is a preventive, not a corrective, remedy.”
    
   By the COURT.

We think the remedy of the petitioner is by' appeal, and that the application for a writ of prohibition should be denied. So ordered.