Supreme Court of the United States, 1905

Alexander v. Crollott

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 18, 1905 · Brown

199 U.S. 580; 26 S. Ct. 161; 50 L. Ed. 317; 1905 U.S. LEXIS 974 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Neill B. Field for appellant., Mr. WilEcm B. Ghilders .for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Application of LiVolsi (N.J. 1981)
Selobyt v. Keough-Dwyer Correctional Facility of Sussex County (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005)
Miller v. Miller (Ark. 1945)
Rash v. Zurbrick (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1934)
Poliszek v. Doak (D.C. Cir. 1932)
Bailey v. Allan E. Walker, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1924)
Himovitz v. Justice's Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1926)
Pendley v. Allen, Justice of Peace (Okla. 1914)
Hall v. Ames (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine 1910)
Commonwealth v. Mellon National Bank & Trust Co. (Pa. 1948)
Philadelphia County Grand Jury Investigation Case (Pa. 1943)
Donnelly v. Montague (Mass. 1940)
Kabadian v. Doak (D.C. Cir. 1933)
Vance v. Chicago Portrait Co. (7th Cir. 1927)
Taylor v. Bay St. Francis Drainage District (Ark. 1926)
Jackson v. Calhoun (Ga. 1923)
State ex rel. Swearingen v. Railroad Commissioners (Fla. 1920)
People ex rel. United Building Material Co. v. Special Term of the New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
In re Macfarland (D.C. Cir. 1908)
In re Dahlgren (D.C. Cir. 1908)
People Ex Rel. Hummel v. . Trial Term (N.Y. 1906)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

Although a writ of prohibition will lie to an inferior court, when it is acting-manifestly beyond its jurisdiction, such writ will issue only where there is no other remedy. Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495; In re Rice, *581 155 U. S. 396, 403; In re New York &c. Steamship Company, 155 U. S. 523, 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 section 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 pre- ‘ vent its- reversal upon appeal,. Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 126; Kempe’s Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch, 173; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 473, 518, 566; M. C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; Mexican &c. R. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U. S. 201, 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.