Romberger v. Board of Mayor

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1885

Romberger v. Board of Mayor, 63 Miss. 218 (Miss. 1885)

Cooper

Opinion of the Court

Cooper, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The prohibition, which was ordered by the writer, was properly discharged by the circuit court. The petition does not show that the board had entertained jurisdiction of the petition, a decision on which was sought to be prohibited, or had done any act showing that it would do so. The only allegation is that the petition had been filed before the committee appointed by the board and that petitioners “ were informed and believed that the board will vote to grant license.” It is not to be presumed that any tribunal will assume to act in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction, and until this is shown prohibition ought not to be awarded. High on Ex. Legal Remedies, § 773.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: H. M. Romberger v. Board of Mayor and Aldermen of Water Valley
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Writ of Prohibition. Where not proper. Unlawful intent must he manifest. H. filed a petition with the board of mayor and aldermen of the town of W. for license to retail liquors. R. and others, citizens of the town, filed a counter petition in due time. After the expiration of the month for which, under $ 1103, Code of 1880, the petition was required to lie over, an additional petition signed by persons who had signed the counter petition, and asking that their names be taken therefrom, was filed by H., with a committee appointed by the board to examine the question. R. and others applied for a writ of prohibition, setting out that “ we are informed and believe that the board will vote to grant license ” by taking into consideration such last petition filed by H., and asking that the board be restrained from so considering it. The writ was granted, but upon motion of the respondents the prohibition was discharged. H'eld, that the prohibition was properly discharged. The board had not entertained jurisdiction of the additional petition, nor done any act which showed an intention to do so; and it cannot be assumed that any tribunal will act in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction until it has done some act to indicate its intention so to do.