Toomey v. Comley

44 A. 741, 72 Conn. 458, 1899 Conn. LEXIS 190
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 28, 1899·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Andrews, C. J.

In the very recent case of Sherwood v. New England Knitting Co., 68 Conn. 543, this court discussed the rules of law applicable to the writ of prohibition. It was there held that the writ of prohibition, while a thoroughly well-recognized proceeding in this State, was one not to be used except in cases where there was a clear excess of jurisdiction by which the party applying for the writ was injured, and where he had no other adequate remedy.

There is no error in this case. The plaintiff had other adequate remedy. A motion to dissolve the injunction, made either to Judge Comley or to any judge of the Superior Court, would have been a remedy much easier to be called into use than the present one, and much simpler in its procedure, while equally efficacious to protect the plain-' tiff’s right.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Toomey v. Comley, 44 A. 741, 72 Conn. 458, 1899 Conn. LEXIS 190 (Colo. 1899).

44 A. 741 (Toomey v. Comley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huggins v. Mulvey
280 A.2d 364 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1971)
Cooper v. Matzkin
278 A.2d 811 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1971)
Connecticut Refining Company v. Saviello
15 Conn. Super. Ct. 216 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1947)
Basney v. Sachs
13 Conn. Super. Ct. 280 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1945)