A writ of prohibition against an inferior court ought not to issue unless it appears that there has been a clear excess of jurisdiction, to the injury of the applicant, and that he has no other adequate remedy. Pending proceedings in contempt against the plaintiff for the violation of an injunction granted by the deputy-judge of a city court in an action returnable to the Superior Court, the plaintiff applied for a writ of prohibition, claiming the acts of such deputy-judge were beyond his jurisdiction. Held that inasmuch as a motion to dissolve the injunction afforded the plaintiff an easy, simple and efficacious remedy, his application for a writ of prohibition was properly dismissed.
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 plaintiff's right.