Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/91098/ex-parte-oklahoma
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 17:16:14
Document Index: 750482972

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4180', 'Art. 3', '§ 4184', '§ 4184', '§ 4184', '§ 720', '§ 3449', '§ 238']

Ex Parte Oklahoma - Citation 91098 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Ex Parte Oklahoma - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/91098CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnApr-03-1911Case Number220 U.S. 191AppellantEx Parte OklahomaExcerpt:.....where, in an action to enjoin state officer from enforcing a state statute against articles in interstate commerce, the interlocutory injunction can be corrected in the circuit court of appeals, and there is a direct appeal on the question of jurisdiction to this court after final decree, an adequate remedy is provided and the writ of prohibition could only be granted on the ground of absolute right and this court in this case decline to allow it to issue.
there is an identity of the principles which govern mandamus and prohibition, and the latter writ is also refused in this case, as there is a remedy by review in this court after final judgment.
Ex Parte Oklahoma - 220 U.S. 191 (1911)
Prohibition is an extraordinary writ which will issue against a court which is acting clearly without any jurisdiction whatever, and where there is no other remedy; but where there is another legal remedy, by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of jurisdiction is doubtful or depends on matters outside the record, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary.
. Mandamus cannot perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, and is only granted as a general rule where there is no other adequate remedy.
Re Atlantic City R. Co.,
On March 24, 1908, the Legislature of Oklahoma enacted a statute, known as the Billups Bill, providing for a state agency for the dispensing of liquors under certain circumstances, but not for use as a beverage, and prohibiting generally the manufacture, sale, bartering, giving away or otherwise furnishing liquor within the state. Session Laws Oklahoma, 1907-1908, ch. 69, p. 605; §§ 4180
Comp.Laws of 1909. Sections 5 and 6 of Art. 3 of the statute, §§ 4184 and 4185 Comp.Laws of 1909, provide in substance that any judge of a district or county court or justice of the peace, upon a showing of probable cause, may issue search and seizure warrants directed to any officer of the county to seize liquors under the circumstances therein mentioned, and provide for a hearing as to whether such liquors are being unlawfully held, etc. The statute also makes provision for the forfeiture of liquors and other personal property employed in unlawfully trafficking in liquors.
"from prosecuting any action in its said courts, under and pursuant to said §§ 4184 and 4185,
of petitioner's said laws, against any intoxicating liquors, in all cases where it may become necessary to try and determine any one or more"
of the issues set out in the margin.
In the interval between the commencement of the first and the last of the suits just referred to, four dealers in liquors and consignors of shipments which had been taken from the custody of the railway company while in course of interstate transportation to consignees in Oklahoma, under the assumed authority of the statute in question, also commenced the other suits in equity referred to in the petition. The defendants in these suits, designated by their official titles, were the state dispensary agent and the sheriff, constables, or other officials who had participated in the seizures complained of in the various bills of complaint, as also the person who held possession of the property. The prayer of each bill was for the allowance of temporary and perpetual injunctions restraining future seizures of liquors shipped by the complainant and consigned to
consignees in Oklahoma by railroad until the interstate transportation had terminated by delivery of the property to the consignees. A temporary
"enjoined and restrained until further order of this Court from seizing or causing to be seized, either directly or indirectly, or ordering or directing any person to seize any intoxicating liquors shipped by the complainant Thixton from the Kentucky to actual
consignees within
that the injunction suits complained of were, in effect, directed against the state, and therefore were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; second, that the proceedings prosecuted under §§ 4184 and 4185 of the 1909 Compiled Laws of Oklahoma are actions
brought under a valid state law, in courts of competent jurisdiction, and therefore the injunctions restraining the enforcement of the search warrants were, in substance and effect, injunctions staying proceedings in the courts of the state, in violation of § 720 of the Revised Statutes. And as supporting this last contention, it is argued
The principle under which the power to issue the extraordinary writ of prohibition may be exerted was thus stated in
184 U. S. 301
"It is firmly established that, where it appears that a court whose action is sought to be prohibited has clearly no jurisdiction of the cause originally, a party who has objected to the jurisdiction at the outset and has no other remedy is entitled to a writ of prohibition as a matter of right. But where there is another legal remedy by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary.
. And that the writ of mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error, and is only granted as a general rule where there is no other adequate remedy.
In re Atlantic City Railroad Company,
In view of the identity of the principles which govern the right to invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to correct an unlawful assumption of jurisdiction, and those which control the power to issue the writ of prohibition for the same purpose, it was perhaps unnecessary to consider the subject from an original point of view, since the matter is settled by authority. Quite recently, in
, the whole subject was reviewed, and it was held that discretion to issue the writ of mandamus would not be exerted to review a question of jurisdiction where there was otherwise adequate remedy provided by statute for the review of errors in that respect asserted to have been committed by a trial court. Besides, a previous decision which was reviewed and reaffirmed in the
case so completely controls the issue here presented as to leave no room for contention on the subject. The case is
) The issue as to whether or not the particular intoxicating liquor in question was at the time of its seizure, a
shipment made to a person within petitioner's borders from a place outside of petitioner's borders, which said shipment had not been delivered by the interstate carrier under the contract of interstate shipment to the consignee at the place of destination."
) The issue as to whether or not the particular intoxicating liquor in question had been shipped from a point outside of petitioner's borders to a place within petitioner's borders in violation of § 3449 of the Revised Statutes of the United States."
) The issue as to whether or not the particular intoxicating liquor in question had been shipped from a place outside of petitioner's borders to a place within petitioner's borders in violation of any one or more of §§ 238, 239, and 240 of the Act of Congress of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1136-7)."
) The issue as to whether or not the particular intoxicating liquor in question, although shipped from a place outside of petitioner's borders to a place within petitioner's borders and in the possession of the interstate carrier, undelivered under the contract of interstate shipment at the time the seizure was made, is 'adulterated' or 'misbranded' within the meaning of the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906, chapter 3915, 34 Stat. 768, commonly known as the Pure Food and Drug Act."