Plaintiffs were not notified that the entire file had been closed until 1997. Respondent conducted a hearing on the matter and reviewed plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Joe Sivley Jr., and its subsequent order granting dismissal. Sr., John W. Furey, Amelia S. Furey and Fonda K. Smith and that the Clerk of the Court shall re-open the Court file. It is well settled that a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only when the lower court is wholly without jurisdiction. We have stated that a writ of prohibition is never issued to prohibit an inferior court from erroneously exercising its jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is tested on the pleadings rather than the proof.
Prohibition is proper where the jurisdiction of the trial court depends on a question of law, rather than a question of fact. Petitionerbears the burden of showing that it is entitled to proceed by prohibition instead of appeal. Village Creek Imp. First, plaintiffs did not move to modify or vacate Respondent's order. Second, the relevant pleadings, which include plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal as to Joe Sivley Jr. and Respondent's order granting such motion, clearly demonstrate that the action in its entirety was not dismissed.