Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/459

 have jurisdiction to issue the writ, or make the order, a mistaken exercise of the jurisdiction, or a misapplication of this acknowledged jurisdiction, even though the case made by the petition is fatally defective, will not justify a resort to the extraordinary process of prohibition." Spelling, Extr. Relief, § 1728.

In the American & English Encyclopedia of Law (23 A. & E. Ency. L. pp. 200-202) it is said:

"Where the inferior court has jurisdiction of the matter in controversy, prohibition will not lie. The writ does not lie to prevent a subordinate court from deciding erroneously, or from enforcing an erroneous judgment in a case in which it has a right to adjudicate, and it matters not whether the court below has decided correctly or erroneously; its jurisdiction of the matter in controversy being conceded, prohibition will not lie to prevent an erroneous exercise of that jurisdiction. The exercise of power which it is sought to prohibit must be wholly unauthorized by law. Mere errors or irregularities in the proceedings which do not go to the jurisdiction will not be considered upon an application for a writ of prohibition. The sole question is as to the jurisdiction of the inferior court to take the proposed action, and the merits of the action will not be considered."

I express no opinion as to whether certiorari will lie to review the proceedings had before, and the determination made by, a magistrate on a search warrant, and whether it would be error for a district court to make or attempt to make such review.

and }}, JJ., concur with, J.

BOOKE & OLSON, co-partners, Appellants, v. JOHN BARTON PAYNE, as Agent of the President of the United States, Respondent.

Carriers-when furnishing facilities and utilitesutilities [sic] for reception of cattle carrier must have same suitable and reasonably safe.

1. It is the duty of a carrier, as an incident to its business of