Case ID: mich_148/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blair, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JONES v. PENDLETON.
    Saving Questions for Review — Exceptions — Sufficiency — Mandamus.
    Mandamus to a circuit judge to compel him to vacate an order entered by him is a sufficient exception to his ruling to justify review thereof in this court on error.
    Error to Wayne; Brooke, J.
    Submitted April 10, 1907.
    (Docket No. 47.)
    Decided June 3, 1907.
    Assumpsit by Clarence R. Jones, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James A. Jones, deceased, against Edward W. Pendleton for commissions on the sale of real estate. There was an order denying a motion to amend the declaration, and a judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
    Remanded for the purpose of making the order complained of a part of the bill of exceptions.
    
      Lehman & Biggs, for appellant.
    
      William C. Stuart, for appellee.
   Blair, J.

Plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error to review an order denying him leave to file an amended declaration. The nature of the case will be disclosed by a reference to Jones v. Pendleton, 134 Mich. 460, and Jones v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 141 Mich. 408.

We are of the opinion that the mandamus proceedings may properly be treated as an exception to the ruling of Judge Mandell, but the motion for leave to amend and the order and opinion of Judge Mandell are not part of the record before us.

It appearing to the court, however, that justice requires a review of the order made by Judge Mandell, denying plaintiff leave to file an amended declaration, the record is remanded to make said order and the proceedings whereon it is founded a part of the bill of exceptions in this case.

McAlvay, C. J., and Carpenter, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.