Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/457

 be that it is a collateral attack on the official action of the magistrate, while the certiorari affords the only direct, plain, speedy, inexpensive, and adequate remedy.

Hence the petition for the writ of prohibition is denied and dismissed.

, C. J., concurs in the result.

, J. (concurring). Our statutes provide:

"The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandamus. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person." § 8470, C. L. 1913.

"It may be issued by the Supreme or district court to an inferior tribunal, or to a corporation, board or person in all cases, when there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." § 8471, C. L. 1913:

It is patent that, under these provisions, prohibition lies only when there is no jurisdiction in the inferior court or body, or when the inferior court or body is about to act in excess of jurisdiction. The question here is: Do the facts presented by the petition in this case show that the district court has no jurisdiction or has or is about to exceed its jurisdiction? I think not.

"Jurisdiction does not depend upon the correctness of the decision made. * * * 'Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to deal with the general abstract question, to hear the particular facts in any case relating to this question, and to determine whether or not they are sufficient to invoke the exercise of that power. which the particular facts constitute a good cause of action, but it includes every issue within the scope of the general power vested in the court, by the law of its otganization, to deal with the abstract question. Nor is this jurisdiction limited to making correct decisions. It empowers the court to determine every issue within the scope of its authority, according to its own view of the law and the evidence, whether its decision is right or wrong.' Foltz v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 6o Fed. 316, 8 C. C. A. 635." Christenson v. Grandy, 180 N. W. 18, 22.

The district court has jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari to justices of the peace and other inferior courts, officers, boards, or tribunals. Const. N. D. § 103; § 8445 C. L. I1913.

The district court also has jurisdiction over proceedings wherein a is not confined to cases in