39 Mo. App. 49 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1890
delivered the opinion of the court.
. The relator applied for a writ of prohibition against the judges of the county court of St. Louis county, to prohibit them from further proceeding in the establishment of a new county road, on the ground that it appeared upon the face of the proceedings that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises. Issuance of the writ was waived, and the judges appeared and made return.
The county court of each county has original exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of establishing county roads of not less than thirty, nor more than sixty, feet in width (Laws of 1887, p. 246, sec. 2); and any party aggrieved has a full remedy by appeal to the circuit court, where the case is tried anew. (Laws, 1887, p. 248, sec. 10.) The action of the county court, therefore, in the present instance is not a usurpation of judicial authority, but, at most, error for which the proper remedy of the party aggrieved is by appeal. State ex rel. v. Seay, 23 Mo. App. 623, 630. While the proceedings before the county court are pending, we cannot determine whether its ultimate action will result in a judgment beyond its jurisdiction. It results that the writ must be denied.
In view of the fact that costs may be incurred, and the parties be subjected to harassing litigation in resisting an attempt of the county court to establish a county road, or part of a road, within the boundaries of the town of Kirkwood, I deem it proper to add that no warrant for such a proceeding has been shown to us, and that two of the judges of this court feel satisfied that no such power exists.