Case ID: iowa_53/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rotiirock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Groves v. Richmond et al.
    1. Jurisdiction: district court: certiorari. The District Court has no jurisdiction of proceedings in certiorari in civil cases.' Following Keniston v. Ilewitt, 48 Iowa, 679.
    2.--: appeal. Where the record in a case shows a want of jurisdiction in the court below an appeal from its decision will not bo entertained, though no objection thereto is made by the parties.
    
      Appeal from Emmet District Oowrt.
    
    Tuesday, April 27.
    The plaintiffs filed their petition in the court below praying for a writ of certiorari, directed to the defendants, who are members of the board of supervisors of Emmet county, requiring them to certify up certain proceedings taken by said board in relation to the removal of the county seat of said county, that said proceedings might be annulled, upon the ground that said board acted illegally in ordering an election upon the question of the removal of the county seat at a time not authorized by law, and further acted illegally in erasing names of legal voters from a remonstrance against said removal, and illegally counted the names of certain persons upon the petition who were in fact not legal voters, and counted others whose names were also upon the remonstrance.
    The writ of certiorari was duly issued, and the defendants filed their return thereto in which they certified up fully the record of their proceedings, with original paj>ers filed and facts, before them, whereby every material allegation of the plaintiff’s petition was put in issue.
    Thereupon the defendants filed their application for a change of venue upon the ground that a fair trial could not be had in Emmet county before an impartial jury because of •the prejudice of the inhabitants of said county. The application being in due form was sustained by the court, and the venue was changed' to the District Court in Palo Alto county for trial. Plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Soper Allen and J. W. Cory, for appellants.
    
      Geo. E. Clarh and J. II. Call, for appellees.
   Rotiirock, J.

In Keniston v. Hewitt, 48 Iowa, 679, it was determined that the District Court has no jurisdiction in certiorari in civil cases, and that such jurisdicUon is exclusive in the Circuit Court. The decisjon jn that case had not been published when this cause was determined in the court below, and jurisdiction was entertained without objection, and no objection is made in this court.

"We have held in all cases where it appears that there is a want of jurisdiction in the court below, or where the ruling made is in excess of the authority or j>ower of the court, that it is the duty of .this court to recognize such want of jurisdiction, even if no objection be made. See St. Joseph Manufacturing Company v. Harrington, ante, 380.

It has come to our knowledge since the submission of the cause that the venue of the action has been changed to the Circuit Court, and we have been requested.to determine the question on the merits; but, for the sake of uniformity in the practice in this court, we think it better to require that the case come to us upon an appeal from a tribunal having jurisdiction of the subject matter. The appeal will be

Dismissed.