Case Name: HAMILTON CARHARTT COTTON MILLS v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1925-05-14
Citations: 231 Mich. 211
Docket Number: Calendar No. 31,735
Parties: HAMILTON CARHARTT COTTON MILLS v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Stesre, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 231
Pages: 211–213

Head Matter:
HAMILTON CARHARTT COTTON MILLS v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Mandamus — Will Not Issue to Compel Dismissal of Writ of CertiorAri — Appropriate Remedies Available.
Mandamus will not issue to compel the circuit judge to dismiss a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in justice’s court, rendered in favor of plaintiff, on the ground of defective service, where the circuit judge retained jurisdiction of the case by refusing to dismiss the writ; appropriate remedies to review all questions involved being open to plaintiff, who will suffer no extraordinary injury by following them, and no question of public importance being involved.
Mandamus by the Hamilton Carhartt Cotton Mills to compel Vincent M. Brennan, circuit judge of Wayne county, to dismiss a writ of certiorari.
Submitted April 28, 1925.
(Calendar No. 31,735.)
Writ denied May 14, 1925.
Beaumont, Smith. & Harris, for plaintiff.
S. Homer Ferguson (Don M. Harlan, of counsel), for defendant.
Mandamus, 38 C. J. § 36.

Opinion:
Fellows, J.
Plaintiff seeks in this proceeding to compel the circuit judge to dismiss a writ of certiorari issued on application of Nelson Company to review a judgment in justice's court rendered in favor of plaintiff, on the ground of defective service. Defendant objects to mandamus as not being the proper remedy. Unless we disregard numerous holdings of this court this objection must be sustained. Defendant by refusing to dismiss the writ retained jurisdiction of the case; the appropriate remedies to' review this question and all others involved in the case are open to plaintiff, and following such orderly procedure will cause no extraordinary injury to plaintiff; no question of public importance is involved. Upon the authority of the following cases: Michigan Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 112 Mich. 270; St. Clair Tunnel Co. v. St. Clair Circuit Judge, 114 Mich. 417; Reed v. St. Clair Circuit Judge, 122 Mich. 153; Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Charlevoix Circuit Judge, 133 Mich. 122; Steel v. Clinton Circuit Judge, 133 Mich. 695; Roberts v. Lenawee Circuit Judge, 140 Mich. 115; Sharp v. Montcalm Circuit Judge, 144 Mich. 328; Hitchcock v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 144 Mich. 362; Peninsular Club v. Kent Circuit Judge, 150 Mich. 614; Warren v. Lenawee Circuit Judge, 160 Mich. 572; Hartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 164 Mich. 231; Olds Motor Works v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 164 Mich. 470; Mikkola v. Houghton Circuit Judge, 165 Mich. 583; Trumbull Motor Car Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 189 Mich. 554; Detroit United Railway v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 212 Mich. 230, and numerous others, which might be cited,
The writ will be denied.
McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Stesre, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.