This page has been validated.
Ark.]
Blackburn, Ex Parte
21

Blackburn, Ex Parte.

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