§ 458. When issues. 59 As has been said, the writ of prohibition will only issue when an inferior tribunal is taking jurisdiction of a cause on which it has no right to act, or is proceeding in an unlawful or unauthorized manner, and then only when there is no other adequate and sufficient remedy, either by appeal or otherwise. The fact that there exists another remedy is always sufficient reason for withholding the writ. It will not lie to control the decision nor discretion of the court.** Neither will it be granted to take the place of an appeal. Neither will it be allowed to usurp the functions of a writ of error or certiorari. Neither will it issue until the question of jurisdiction is raised in the inferior tribunal. It will not lie to prevent the performance of duties which are purely ministerial on the part of the inferior tribunal; as, for instance, the issuing of an execution, etc. 61 § 459. Pleading and Practice. The general method of obtaining the writ of prohibition is for the person or applicant in interest to file in the court having power to issue the writ a petition or information, duly verified, setting forth the facts upon which he relies for his relief. Upon the presentation of this application or petition, notice should be served upon the opposite party, requiring him to show cause, upon a given day, why the writ should not issue. Upon the return the court will make the rule absolute, or will discharge it, as seems proper.62 59 Ex parte Mobile & Ohio Ry. Co., 63 Ala. 349; State v. Braun, 31 Wis. 600; Ex parte Braudlacht, 2 Hill, 367. 60 Leonard v Bartels, 4 Colo. 95; State v. Southern Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 59, 13 S. W. 398. 61 People v. Court of Common Pleas, 43 Barb. 278; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174, 3 Sup. Ct. 84; Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252, 11 S. W. 558; Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105, 10 Pac. 272. 62 Mayo v. James, 12 Grat. 17; Ex parte Williams, 4 Ark. 537. (696) § 460. Parties. The writ always issues in the name of the state. It may, however, issue in the name of a private person, if such irregularity does not affect the merits. The application may be made by either of the parties to the suit, or it may even be made by a stranger." 63 63 State v. Seay, 23 Mo. App. 623; Baldwin v. Cooley, 1 Rich. (N. S.) 256. 64 Walton v. Greenwood, 60 Me. 363; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Adol. & E. (N. S.) 171; Chambers v. Green, 44 L. J. Ch. 600; High, Extr. Rem. § 779. (697) ADAMSON v. JARVIS, 4 Bing. 66, 73, 12 Moore, 241. Agard v. Valencia, 39 Cal. 292. .125, 126 .... 83 .210, 212, 213 45 15 302 327 247 273 89 109 .387, 389 248 374 374 412 429 57 .302, 300 199 36 355 370 153 51 19 .94.95 367 382 47 Agate v. King, 17 Abb. Pr. 159. Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg, 2 Har. & G. 493. Ainsworth v. Bowen, 9 Wis. 348... Akerly v. Vilas, 21 Wis. 88... 25 Wis. 703..... Alamance County Com'rs v. Blair, 76 N. C. 136. Albany & Rensselaer Co. v. Lundberg, 121 U. S. 451, 7 Sup. Ct. 958...... American Baptist Home Mission Soc. v. Foote, 52 Hun, 307, 5 N. Y. Supp. 236 ..... Ammerman v. Crosby, 26 Ind. 451. Amphlett v. Hibbard, 29 Mich. 298...... Ancell v. City of Cape Girardeau, 48 Mo. 80. Anderson v. Biddle, 9 Mo. 580..... v. Case, 28 Wis. 505.... v. Hill, 53 Barb. 238, 244... v. Hubbell, 93 Ind. 570. v. Johnson, 3 Sandf. 1. v. Read, 2 Overt. 205. Andrews v. Bond, 16 Barb. 633. v. Gillespie, 47 N. Y. 487. 246 145 101 .... .411, 415 183 11 .112, 125 364 339 442 328 350 Andrus v. Foster, 17 Vt. 556.. ANSON V. ANSON, 20 Iowa, 55. Armitage v. Pulver, 37 N. Y. 494.. Armstrong v. Brownfield, 32 Kan. 116, 4 Pac. 185.. v. City of St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 100.. v. Hinds, 8 Minn. 254 (Gil. 221). v. Miller, 6 Ohio, 118..... Arnold v. Lyman, 17 Mass. 400.... 128 421 312 101 .233, 421 .297a 351 417 162 328 165 |