Case Name: KERRIGAN v. SAGINAW COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-06-26
Citations: 12 Mich. App. 127
Docket Number: Docket No. 3,447
Parties: KERRIGAN v. SAGINAW COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER.
Judges: McIntyre, J., concurred with Quinn, J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 12
Pages: 127–129

Head Matter:
KERRIGAN v. SAGINAW COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER.
Opinion of the Court.
1. Drains — Apportionment of Benefits — Motion to Dismiss Appeal — Ex Parte Order of Probate Court.
A person appealing a drain commissioner’s apportionment of benefits' in probate eourt has no clear legal right to the enforcement of a probate court’s ex parte order, and the drain commissioner has no clear duty to perform it, when the commissioner has made a motion to the probate court to dismiss the appeal and this motion was never ruled on (CLS 1961, § 280.155).
Concurring Opinion.
Holbrook, P. J.
2. Drains — Assessment—Apportionment of Benefits — Appeal— Mandamus.
The proper method of appeal for reviewing proceedings in establishing a drain and levying taxes, where the appellant claims that no notiee was given according to law, is by certiorari and where plaintiff, claiming to be a property owner, made an untimely appeal to the probate court which made an ex parte order, plaintiff was not entitled to enforcement of that order by mandamus in circuit court (MOLA §§880.154, 880-.155, 880.156, 880.161).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 51 Am Jur, Taxation § 753.
Appeal'from Saginaw; Miller (Allan C.), J., presiding.
Submitted Division 3 March 5, 1968, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 3,447.)
Decided June 26, 1968.
Complaint by Edith Kerrigan .against .Raymond Jaenicke, Saginaw County Drain Commissioner, for a writ of mandamus ordering defendant to comply with an ex parte order of the probate court regarding defendant’s assessment of benefits in a drain proceeding. Writ granted. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and complaint dismissed.
Merritt B. Jones, for plaintiff.
Floyd T. Fuss, for defendant.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
Defendant appeals from the trial court's grant of writ of mandamus requiring defendant to comply with an ex parte order of the probate court issued on plaintiff's appeal from the order and review of apportionments made by defendant in a drain proceeding. The latter appeal was pursuant to CLS 1961, § 280.155 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 11-.1155). Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and the probate court has never ruled on that motion. On this record, plaintiff has no clear legal right to the enforcement of the ex parte order of the probate court, nor does defendant have a legal duty to perform it. Janigian v. City of Dearborn (1953), 336 Mich 261. The writ of mandamus should not have been granted.
Reversed and plaintiff's complaint for mandamus is dismissed, with costs to defendant.
McIntyre, J., concurred with Quinn, J.