Sofre Alexander v. Seferino Crollott/Opinion of the Court

by Henry Billings Brown

United States Supreme Court

199 U.S. 580

Sofre Alexander  v.  Seferino Crollott

 Argued: November 27, 1905. --- Decided: December 18, 1905

Although a writ of prohibition will lie to an inferior court where it is acting manifestly beyond its jurisdiction, such writ will issue only when there is no other remedy. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 29 L. ed 601, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570; Re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 495, 36 L. ed. 232, 239, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 453; Re Rice, 155 U.S. 403, 39 L. ed. 201, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 149; Re New York S. S.C.o. 155 U.S. 531, 39 L. ed. 249, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183.

By his answer Alexander claimed to be the owner of the property, and alleged a want of jurisdiction on the part of the justice to determine the question of ownership in a proceeding for forcible entry and detainer. The justice decided against him. Under such circumstances he should have taken an appeal to the district court under § 3358 of the New Mexican Code, which provides that 'an appeal shall be allowed to the district court in all cases wherein judgment may be hereafter rendered in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or both.' No reason is apparent why this appeal was not taken.

The fact that the judgment may have been void will not prevent its reversal upon appeal (Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 126, 2 L. ed. 229; Kempe v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 173, 3 L. ed. 70; Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 473, 518, 566, 15 L. ed. 691, 728, 747, 767; Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 28 L. ed. 462, 463, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U.S. 208, 39 L. ed. 675, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563; Jordan v. Dennis, 7 Met. 590; Waters v. Randall, 8 Met. 132; Striker v. Mott, 6 Wend. 465; Langford v. Monteith, 102 U.S. 145, 26 L. ed. 53), nor does the requirement of a bond obviate the necessity of an appeal. It is one of the ordinary incidents of litigation.

Affirmed.

Notes