2594601Ex parte Blackburn1843the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

5 Ark. 21

Ex parte BLACKBURN

Writ of Prohibition to County Court of Scott County

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
The county courts have, both by the constitution and the statutes, unquestionable jurisdiction in regard to the removal of county seats. Consequently, a writ of prohibition will not lie to a county court, to forbid its removal of the seat of justice, even on an allegation that they are proceeding to remove it under an unconstitutional law.

This was an application, upon the part of the petitioner, to this Court for a Writ of prohibition, to be directed to the county court of Scott county, preventing them from removing the seat of justice, and records of that court, from Boonville to Wynfield. The facts set out in favor of the writ showed, that the petitioner was the legal owner and proprietor of certain lots in the town of Boonville, on which were erected valuable improvements, and that the town was originally located and laid out upon ten acres of land, donated by Gilbert Marshall and David Titsworth to the commissioners of said county, for the purpose of establishing a seat of justice thereon, and that they executed their bond for title, and that Marshall purchased a lot of the commissioners, which bond was afterwards taken up by the petitioner, as assignee of Marshall, by executing a deed in fee, in lieu thereof, and that he also became the purchaser of the lot originally owned by Marshall. The legislature had recently passed an act ordering the removal of the seat of justice from Boonville to Wynfield, and directing the records of the county and circuit courts to be transferred to the latter place, and the seat of justice to be permanently fixed there, until otherwise changed by law. It was contended, in behalf of the petitioner, that this act was unconstitutional, because it deprived him of vested rights, without making any adequate compensation for the loss he would sustain.

[Opinion of the court by Justice THOMAS J. LACY.]

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse