Case ID: mich_145/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YOUNG v. VAN BUREN CIRCUIT JUDGE.
    Mandamus — Propriety—Fruitlessness of Remedy.
    Mandamus will not issue to compel a circuit judge to frame an issue, or show cause why he should not do so, in a mandamus proceeding before him to compel a village council to approve a druggist’s bond, where it appears from his return that while the bond was in the custody of the council, and before the hearing before him, three of the four sureties on the bond withdrew from it.
    Mandamus by Ed. Young to compel L. Burget Des Voignes, circuit judge of Van Burén county, to frame an issue in a proceeding to compel the approval of a druggist’s bond.
    Submitted February 27, 1906.
    (Calendar No. 21,558.)
    Writ denied July 23, 1906.
    
      Barnard & Lewis, for relator.
    
      H. M. Huff and R. M. Chase, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This is an application for mandamus to compel respondent to frame an issue, or show cause why he should not do so, in a certain mandamus proceeding pending before him in said court wherein relator sought to compel the council of the village of G-obleville to approve a certain druggist’s bond presented by said relator. For the reason that it appears from the return of respondent circuit judge in the answer of said council that while said bond was in the custody of said village council, the same not having been accepted and approved, three of the four sureties thereto filed in writing with said council their withdrawal from said bond as sureties and notice of refusal to serve as such, therefore at the time the said mandamus was heard before respondent there was no proper bond to be passed upon by said council or said respondent, further proceedings would have been useless.

The writ is denied, with costs.