Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1903-11-27

\ l OEs
Failure of the law to give a right
of appeal where party feels that
he has been injured by a decision,
affords no ground for the writ of
mandamus.
Board OF Education vs.. John
Homer Holt, judge, ct ais, from
Tucker county, opinion by Dent, j.;
peremptory writ In prohibition
awarded.
There Is a controversy between
two sets of men claiming to be the
legal board of education of Davis
district, In Tucker county. The
contestants, Howard and Cline,
claiming to be the dejure board of
education, obtained writ Of prohi'
bltson from Judge Holt against
Hovetmale and McKelvy, the de.
facto board, inhibiting them from
acting as such board directing the
latter to turn over to the former all
the property belonging to the board
of education In said district, thus
turning out the defacto board and
installing the dejure board until
the title to the Office could be en-
quired into and determined.
The effect of the writ awarded by
this court Is to prohibit Judge Holt
from proceeding furthur with his
writ of prohibition.
Held In part: The writ of prohi'
bition only properly issues to pre-
vent unlawful judicial action by In
ferior tribunals exercising or as
sumipg to exercise judicial func-
lions. 1t never issues against ad-
ministrative boards exercising pure
ly administrative functions.
The writ of prohibition is never
proper to try title to office and Dust
defacto officers and replace them
by others claiming to be dejure Off
GERS.
When a circuit court issued a
rule In prohibition directly contrary
to the principles settled by this
court In a former case to which he
was party, this court will not re-.
quire the the party making com,
plant to first make motion to dis
charge such rule before applying
to this court for relief against the
same.
Merriner VS.. Merriner, from
Wetzel county, opinion by Dent.
| J.; affirmed.
In this case David Merriner
holds In trust for himself and his
father, Mathew Mortimer, a tract
of land the title to which Is In Da-
vid, but the father has HE estate
and right of possession.
The son says that by agreement
he has the right to possession OF
the laud for cultivation and filling
and that his father has become so
disagreeable that 1t Is impossible
for them to get along amtcably, and
obtained temporary injunction in
the circuit court enjoining the
father from interfering with him In
the cultivation of the farm, the
circuit court, on hearing dissolving
the Injunction, from which order
the appeal was had to this court.
Held; A general allegation
that the defendant Is interfering
with the plaintiff In the matter of
farming, cultivating or tilling a
farm on which plaintiff resides,
presents no sufficient grounds for
an injunction.
]. w. Davis VS.. American Tele-
phone Company, from Greenbrier
county, opinion by Brannon, J.; re-
versed and second verdict set aside
and judgment for plaintiff on the
first verdict.
Davis brought an action before a
Justice against the defendants for a
trespass upon the lands of Davis,
claiming $2G4. 90 as damages. The
company offered to confess judg-
ment for SIS 90 claiming this all
the damages they caused the prop
erty, and the case was appealed to
the circuit court, where verdict
was obtained by DavisIfor $156 rs,
which verdict the circuit court set
aside, and on the second trial a yer
dict was given for $50 90, from
which the case came to this court
on writ of error.
The damages to the land, as
claimed, consisted In cutting down
valuable timber trees and trimming
and ipjuring others In the construc-
ton OF the telephone lines of the
company through the lands of Da-
Wis.