New-York tribune., 1891-01-29
A WRIT OF rROHIBITION.

4 writ of prohibition will not go to an inferior
court if such court had. in fact, jurisdiction over
the cause. although the facts III evidence at the
trial in such inferior court are not suoh as TO
give that court jurisdiction. Thus, II District
Court have a general authority to decree con-
delnuation of a ship for maritime wrongs. lnvolV-
ing principles OF international law there VIII De
no prohibition. even though the evidence did not
disclose any facts in the particular case whlch
would justify condemnations Such decree
would be erroneous but il should be adJudsed SO
on appeal. II is not case OF want OF luriIs,1ic-
ton. lllcyworth V. London, Caoaoe v Eli''
ard appeal.J -.
The result OF the discussion may be summed up
in the following proposition:
First-NO prohibition Will issue TO court oi
Admiralty in a maritime case involving disputed
questions OF international law on the ground that
il is proceeding without jurisdiction, unless the
facts and rules Of law are clearly beyond lts
powers for that court is peculiarly adapted 10
The decision OF questions arising upon lhterha'iohai
and maritime law.
Sccond-ln general if an inferior court mas
jurisdiction there will he 10 writ OF prohibition
issued even if il commits irregularities or makes
a wrong decision on the merits OF the case. 10
make prohibition proper III such case there must
be presented, by the pleadings IN the cause some
| issue which, from Its nature, the court Is III
| competent to Try.
! Tnrd-lt is a settled rule that writ OF pro
| hibitIon will not be granted after Judgment
rendered by the court in which the action is pend
| ing unless it i, perfectly clear that there IS a
want or excess of jurisdiction.
y
"A writ OF prohibition. issued as between
parties TO aG%actlon, and on the application
Of a stran-"r tie word stranger mean
inc one who has no direct pecuniary interest in the
result of tie action. i correspondent in divorce
SUIT Is an example of a stranger While party
10 an action may have legal right to writ OF
prohibition, a stranger mas no such right Ibe
coart may in lis discretion, refuse the writ. since
he hq, no legal right - II. II may he guided III
| DENYING II Dy principles Of state policy II a
foreign nation makes the application for the writ
il has no grievance though Il he refused. II may
be added that there Is no precedent III the United
States courts for granting the writ on the apphca-
ton of stranger. but only on that of a party
10 the action IN the court sought 10 be- prohibited
Fiuh-lt all inferior court haS general Jurls-
dictiOn over the subject in controversy a Wflt
of prohibition will not be granted. even though
the evidence produced at the trial was not sulI!-
clent 10 give the court jurlsdictiOn
so far tor the English decisions.
The American authorities are still less faVor-
able to an applicant Tor the writ
There is much judicial tendency toward hold
ing that this IL not writ OF right III any case.
even though the applicant be not stranger. but
a party Ia the action. Again. il Will not be used
as a mode of correcting an assumed error III Il
Judgment Of Court of Admiralty. IN partc
Pennsylvania 1903, United States Reports Ia.
The writ is confined to cases of jurisdiction and
there must be clear excess of il. MetcaN 40.
IL is enough to preclude it's USE If the inferior
court has jurisdiction of the subject matter.
People w. Seward :. Wendell BIS In other
words its Office Is not 10 correct errors. but 10
prevent courts from transcendlng the limits OF
their power. IliEODokE w. DNlplll'