State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill
The State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Gill, Judge
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MEMORANDUM.
Per Curiam.
The application of the attorney-general for a preliminary rule in prohibition against Judge Gill, to prevent his taking further proceedings on a writ of habeas corpus issued by him on the application of Mr. Lowe, is denied.
Without going into the merits of the question whether or not Mr. Lowe is in contempt, it is the opinion of the judges present that, as the application here does not show that the alleged want of jurisdiction (on which the application for prohibition is founded) appears in the record or proceedings before Judge Gill, the objection of want of jurisdiction on his part should, at least, be first presented to Judge Gill upon a showing of said facts.
Shepard Barclay, C. J., and G. B. Macearlane, W. M. Robinson, Theo. Brace, and G. D. Burgess, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.