Pinkston v. Garrason
This text of 174 S.E. 626 (Pinkston v. Garrason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The office of a writ of prohibition is to prevent an inferior judicatory or quasi-judicial officer from exceeding his jurisdiction. In this ease the county commissioners had jurisdiction of the matter with which they proposed to deal, and the writ of prohibition would not lie to prevent them from passing any order therein, regardless of whether such order might be erroneous. Consequently the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition. Wright v. Wood, 178 Ga. 273 (173 S. E. 138).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
174 S.E. 626, 178 Ga. 814, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkston-v-garrason-ga-1934.