■ OPINION of the Court, by
-Tilts *s an appeal from a judgment of the Warren сircuit court, awarding a writ of consultation in a proceeding ¡>y prohibition in that court, had at thе instance of the-)c]lant 1‘ -
. „ ...... , 1 he object. Or the writ оt prohibition was to prevent the county court of Warren from proceeding to a deter-,itmation °f various appeals depending bеfore it, and whicli bad been taken by the apрellant, Reese,. from judgments awarded against hint by justiсes of the peace j„ favol. 0f Lawless,
Thereis no question but what the subject matter of the appeals is cognisable in the circuit court, and ought !lüí; to have been brought into discussion in the county court j but whether the circuit court ought in a рroceed-ing by prohibition to have prevеnted the county court fwm deciding upon those appeals, we are ⅛ this case callеd upon to determine.
so anywhere, sjggGt&cally given by statute; and if it shоuld be. cxerciscd by the circuit court over thе county court, it must be on account of its originаl jurisdiction over th» subject matter in contest.
In England, according to the settled doctrine of the law, the courts of Westminster do, by prohibition, pre-vеnt the inferior courts of the kingdom from proceeding -m cases cognisable before them — (5 Bаc. 648.), court of - common pleas, as well аs that of th»
If then we are correct with respect to the English practice, and the principles upon which it is founded, it follows pretty clearly that the circuit courts, whcrc-■cver they possess jurisdiction over the subject matter in contest, have the right to award writs of prohibition against courts of inferior jurisdiction.
This, howevеr, we apprehend may be exercised either at the instance of the plaintiff or defеndant. At the instance of the defendant, it would cеrtainly be proper to award the writ; and it is held the plaintiff may obtain it against bis own suit — Bac. Abr. title Prohibitiоn, letter C. It follows, therefore, that the writ oí prohibition in the present case was propеrly awarded ; and that upon a final trial, the writ of consultation was improperly awarded.
The judgmеnt must be reversed, the cause remanded to thе court below, and judgment there entered according to the principles of this opinion.
Notes
Theft f rejemtkns were ■ tj warrants » j^^jyTrjr ⅛ fiatutt of Xmtacfy rt Wyp- l6jJr .'ferfoMfir 0°". ciará, contrary totbeaafortbe ferriedmM