
    Richmond.
    Pizzini v. Grinnan, Judge.
    March 22, 1911.
    1. Prohibition—Constitutionality of Statutes.—Prohibition to pro,hibit a judge from entering up an award as the judgment of the court is not the proper remedy to determine whether or not the statute under which the judge is acting is in conflict with the Constitution of the State.
    Upon a petition for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Honorable Daniel Grinnan, judge as aforesaid, from entering up the alleged award of the arbitrators—in the matter of arbitration proceedings instituted in said Chancery Court by George B. Hutchings against Andrew Pizzini and Andrew Pizzini, Jr.—as the judgment or decree of the said chancery court, under sections 3008 and 3009 of the Code, on the ground that the said sections are unconstitutional.
    
      Denied.
    
    
      Wyndham R. Meredith, for the petitioner.
    
      McGuire, Riely & Bryan, for the respondents.
   By the Court:

This day came again the parties, by counsel, and the court having maturely considered the petition of petitioner and exhibits filed therewith, the demurrer and answer of the respondents, and arguments of counsel, and being of opinion that the propriety of granting or refusing the petition for the writ of prohibition depends upon the constitutionality of chapter 143 of the Code of 1904, and being further of opinion that this procedure is not the proper piode of determining whether or not the said chapter is repugnant to the Constitution, doth deny the said writ, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to make any proper defense to the proceedings sought to be prohibited.

And it is further ordered that the respondents recover of the petitioner their costs by them expended about their defense herein.

Denied.  