Case ID: mich_297/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Bushnell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH v. INGHAM CIRCUIT JUDGE.
    Mandamus — Unemployment Compensation Benefits — Pendency of Appeal — Costs.
    Writ of mandamus to compel payment of benefits under the unemployment compensation act as they accrued pending decision on employer’s appeal to courts from award to claimants without regard to the ultimate rights of the parties is denied, without. costs, a public question being involved.
    Petition for mandamus by August A. Smith and others to compel Lelánd W. Carr, Ingham Circuit Judge, to vacate an order staying payment of unemployment compensation pending appeal.
    Submitted October 8, 1940.
    (Calendar No. 41,266.)
    Writ denied May 21, 1941.
    Rehearing denied June 30, 1941.
    
      Maurice Sugar and Ernest Goodman, for plaintiffs.
    
      Bulkley, Ledyard, Dickinson & Wright and Thomas F. Chawke (Harry G. Bulkley, John G. Garlinghouse and Charles B. Moon, Jr., of counsel), for defendant Ingham Circuit Judge.
    
      Thomas Bead, Attorney General, and Florence N. Clement, Assistant Attorney General, for Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission.
   Per Curiam.

This is a petition for mandamus to compel Leland W. Carr, Ingham circuit judge, to vacate an order staying the payment of certain unemployment benefits by the Michigan unemployment compensation commission pending the determination of an appeal. The appeal in that case has been heard at the October session of court and the questions raised are decided in Chrysler Corp. v. Smith, ante, 438 (135 A. L. R. 900). The purpose in seeking mandamus is to obtain the payment of benefits pending decision on the above appeal, without regard to the ultimate decision as to the rights of the parties.

Writ denied. No costs awarded, this being a question of public interest.

Sharpe, C. J., and Boyles, Chandler, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Bushnell, J.

Because of the court’s decision to-

day in Chrysler Corp. v. Smith, ante, 438 (135 A. L. R. 900), I concur.

McAllister, J., concurred with Bushnell, J.