¶1— This is plainly no case for the issue of a writ of prohibition. S hould the trial court enter a finding and judgment for damages against petitioner , and the other sureties on the injunction bond, any one of them aggrieved may review that result by appeal or writ of error on taking proper steps to that end. Any error that court may make in determining the proper limits of its jurisdiction in the premises can be effectively corrected by any of the usual modes of reviewing judgments. The writ of prohibition should issue only in circumstances where the ordinary remedies are inadequate to the ends of justice. Where, as here, an appeal or writ of error furnishes a complete and effective remedy for any error of the court below, prejudicial to the rights of a party, this extraordinary remedy should be denied. That will be the order here.
98 Mo. 252
Mastin v. Sloan
Decided April 15, 1889
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1889-04-15
Prohibition. Plaintiff is. surety on a bond filed in the circuit court on the making of a temporary restraining order in the suit of Nolan, Adm’r, v. Jones. The principal in the bond is Nolan as administrator, plaintiff in that proceeding. The temporary injunction was dissolved. Defendant Jones then filed a motion for an assessment of damages upon the bond (sustained by reason of the restraining order) in pursuance of the Missouri statute.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““Any error that court may make in determining the proper limits of its jurisdiction in the premises can be effectively corrected by any of the usual modes of reviewing judgments. The writ of prohibition should issue only in circumstances where the ordinary remedies are inadequate to the ends of justice. Where, as here, an appeal or writ of error furnishes a complete and effective remedy* for any error of the court below, prejudicial to the rights of a party, this extraordinary remedy should be denied.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including Mason v. Grubel
Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Prohibition”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Weit denied · Decided 1889-04-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1936
13 state decisions
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 →