Case ID: ga-l-rep_1/html/0294-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Jackson, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Decision Rendered Wednesday, February 10, 1886.
    
    Seymour et al. vs. Almond et al.
    
    Prohibition, from Elbert. Elections. Ordinary. Prohibition. Equity. Courts. Officers. (Before Judge Lumpkin.)
   Jackson, C. J.

1. The writ of prohibition issues only to prohibit action by an inferior court. The ordinary, in respect to an election to decide the question of fence or no fence, is not a court, but an officer of the body politic of the State, to whom is confided the ordering, supervision and announcement of the result of an election on that issue.

2. If he acted in these matters as a court, the writ of prohibition would issue only to stop him from acting as such, if the subject matter was beyond his jurisdiction. In this case the subject matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of this officer and none other.

W. M. & M. P. Reese; John T. Osborn; John C. Reed, for plaintiffs in error.

J. P. Shannon; J. N. Worley; H. J. Brewer; H. A. Roebuck; W. N. Harris; F. H. Colley, for defendants.

3. No court is permitted by the statute, authorizing this election and the decision thereon by the ordinary, to interfere tin rein. This court so decided, and at a subsequent session, the legislature have not altered the statute so construed.

4. Even if the superior court had jurisdictional power to intervene by prohibition, it ought not to do so before some action by the ordinary was had, indicating plainlythat officer would adjudicate, if a judicial offi. cer, or would act, if a mere official quoad hoc of the political power of the state, contrary to right, justice and truth, so plainly showing that he would so act or adjudge as to overcome the presumption that every public officer will do right until the contrary is manifost. B Chitty’s BL, 111-114; Wells Jur„ §§516, 517, 48; High Ex. Rem., §§768, 771, 772, 777, 780, 782, 784, 790; Wood Mand., 101, 113, 115, 148, 149; Code, §3209; 61 Ga., 156; Code, §1455; 69 Ga., 280, 283; 71 Id., 205; Skrine et al. vs. Jackson et al. Caldwell et al. vs. Barrett et al., (September term, 1884).

Judgment affirmed