PROHIBITION. Edrbidden to do; inhibi tion; interdiction. Talbott v. Casualty Co., 74 Md. 545;22 Atl. 395, 13 L. R. A. 584.
In Practice. The name of a writ issued by a superior court, directed to the judge and parties to a suit in an inferior court, commanding them to cease from the prose cution of the same, upon a suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral mat ter arising therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court. 3 Bla. Com. 112; Viner, Abr.; 2 H. Bla. 533; Re Fassett, 142 U. S. 479, 12 Sup. Ct. 295, 35 L. Ed. 1087 ; v. Crollott, 199 U. S. 580, 26 Sup. Ct. 161, 50 L. Ed. an inferior court which has taken jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign state; 17 Q. B. 196, 215. The writ of prohibition may also be is sued when, having jurisdiction, the court has attempted to proceed by rules differing from those which ought to be observed; Bull. N. P. 219 ; or when by the exercise of its ju risdiction, the inferior court would defeat a legal right; 2 Chitty, Pr. 355 ; or to prevent a judge from granting a new trial after ex piration of the trial term ; State v. Walls, 113 Mo. 42, 20 S. W. 883.
A writ of prohibition is a civil remedy given in a civil action, even when instituted to arrest a criminal prosecution ; Farns worth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 9 Sup. Ct. 253, 32 L. Ed. 616; and only lies in case of the unlawful exercise of judicial functions; Fleming v. Com'rs, 31 W. Va. 617, 8 S. E. 267; State v. Gary, 33 Wis. 93; People v. Marine Court, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 341.
The writ of prohibition issues only in cases of extreme necessity, and before it can be granted, it must appear that the party aggrieved has applied in vain for redress ; and it is never allowed except in cases of usurpation or abuse of power, and not then unless other existing remedies are inadequate to afford relief, or no other rem edy exists ; Ensign Mfg. Co. v. Carroll, 30 W. Va. 532, 4 S. E. 782: When a writ of error or appeal furnishes a complete and effective remedy, a writ of prohibition will not be issued ; Mastin v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252, 11 S. W. 558; Turner v. Forsyth, 78 Ga. 683, 3 S. E. 649; Nelms v. Vaughan, 84 Va. 696, 5 S. E. 704. Prohibition will not issue judgment and sentence unless want of juris diction appears on the face of the proceed ings, but before judgment the supreme court can examine not simply the, process and pleadings of record, but also the facts and evidence upon which action was taken; Re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 513, 12 Sup. Ct. 453,
36 L. Ed. 232.
A writ of prohibition will not be issued to restrain a district court from taking ju risdiction of a petition of the owner of a barge for the benefit of the limited liability act; Re Engles, 146 U. S. 357, 13 Sup. Ct. 281, 36 L. Ed. 1004.
When a party aggrieved by a judgment has an appeal to the supreme court which becomes inefficacious through his neglect, a writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent the enforcement of the judgment; Re er, 143 Ti. S. 472, 513, 12 Sup. Ct. 453, 36 L. Ed. 232. If it appear that the thing sought to be prohibited has been done, a writ of error will be dismissed ; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147, 24 Sup. Ct. 611, 48 L. Ed. 913.
"Where it appears that the court whose action is sought to be prohibited has clearly no jurisdiction of the cause originally, or of some collateral matter arising therein, a par ty who has objected to the jurisdiction at 10 .0tdiusiTION the o ts? t alihas no other remedy is enti tled pSohibition as a matter of right. 3ere there is another legal reme•ppet.1 or otherwise, or where the ques Wen of jurisdiction of the court is doub , , ol. flenendS on facts which are not made matter of,ecord, or where the applica tion is, made by a stranger, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary. Nor is the granting of the writ obligatory where the case has gone to sentence, and the want of jurisdiction does Sot appear upon the face of the proceedings." Re Rice, 155 U. S. 402, 15 Sup. Ct. 149, 39 L. Ed. 198, followed in The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 17 Sup. Ct. 510, 41 L. Ed. 937; Alexander v. Crollott, 199 U. S. 580, 26 Sup. Ct. 161, 50 L. Ed. 317.
The term prohibition is also applied to the interdiction of making and of selling or giv ing away, intoxicating liquors, abso lutely or for other than medicinal, scientific, and sacramental purposes. See LIQUOB