Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

110 Ky. 483

Schobarg v. Manson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided April 12, 1901

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1901-04-12

<p>Prohibition — Refusal of Justice of the Peace to Transfer Case.</p> <p>Held: The mere entry of a motion before a justice of the peace to transfer a case to some other justice of the county for trial, does not divest him of jurisdiction; and therefore a writ of prohibition does not lie to restrain him from proceeding with the trial, though he may have committed an error in overruling the motion.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1901-04-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1939

8 state decisions

401901191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion of the court by

JUDGE DuRELLE

¶2Affirming.

¶3One Louis Christian instituted an action against appellants, Schobarg and Ellis, in the court of appellee, a justice of the peace in Kenton county. Appellants filed an *484affidavit, and moved to transfer tlie case for trial to some other justice of the county. This motion being overruled, appellants instituted the present proceeding for a writ of prohibition, to prevent appellee from proceeding with the trial. A demurrer to the petition was sustained.

¶4There seems but one question for decision, and that is whether the tiling of the affidavit and entry of the motion to transfer divests a justice of the peace of jurisdiction to try the case. If it does not, a writ of prohibition is not a proper remedy. When sitting .as a court to pass upon a motion, a justice of the peace is a judicial officer exercising a judicial function. If acting within the scope of his jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition does mot lie to control the exercise of his judicial discretion. If he is wrong in his judgment, it is error, to correct which appeal will lie in proper cases, but not prohibition. This exact question seems decided in an opinion by Judge Paynter in Galbraith v. Williams (Ky.) 50 S. W., 686 (21 R., 79). The judgment is affirmed.

/110/ky/483 · .json · Public domain