Although a writ of prohibition will lie to an inferior court
acting manifestly beyond its jurisdiction, the writ will issue only
where there is no other remedy, and even though the judgment may be
void, as that fact does not prevent its reversal on appeal,
mandamus cannot be resorted to where the statute gives an appeal.
The requirement of giving a bond on appeal is an ordinary incident
of litigation, and does not obviate the necessity of the appeal and
justify the issuing of a writ of mandamus.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the supreme court quashing
a writ of prohibition issued by that court to the defendant
Crollott, a justice of the peace of the County of Bernalillo, which
commanded him to desist and refrain from any further proceedings in
five several actions of forcible entry and detainer, instituted by
one Cleland before said justice and against Alexander and four
other parties.
An appeal was taken from the order quashing the writ to this
Court.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.
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;
In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472,
143 U. S. 495;
In re
Rice,
Page 199 U. S. 581
155 U. S. 403;
In re New York &c. Steamship Co., 155
U. S. 531.
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 ยง 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;
Kempe v.
Kennedy, 5 Cranch 173;
Scott v.
Sandford, 19 How. 393,
60 U. S. 473,
60 U. S. 518,
60 U. S. 566;
M., C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.
S. 379,
111 U. S. 382;
Mexican &c. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157
U. S. 208;
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, nor does the requirement of a bond obviate the
necessity of an appeal. It is one of the ordinary incidents of
litigation.
Affirmed.