Opinion ID: 1949896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the writ of mandamus improvidently issued because it was to take effect prospectively?

Text: In our opinion, the writ of mandamus issued in this case was improvidently issued for the reason that there was no default in the performance of any duty at the time the writ was issued. Unless and until there has been an actual default in the performance of a duty which the officer has refused to discharge, the mandamus will not lie. Anderson v. Robins, 161 Miss. 604, 137 So. 476 (1931). And the writ will not be granted to take effect prospectively. Wood v. State ex rel. Gillespie, 169 Miss. 790, 142 So. 747 (1932). For this second and independent reason, the writ should not have issued. REVERSED AND RENDERED. PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.