Case Name: DETROIT LUMBER CO. v. AUXILIARY YACHT "PETREL"
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1909-02-02
Citations: 155 Mich. 350
Docket Number: Calendar No. 23,219½
Parties: DETROIT LUMBER CO. v. AUXILIARY YACHT "PETREL."
Judges: Grant, Montgomery, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 350–353

Head Matter:
DETROIT LUMBER CO. v. AUXILIARY YACHT "PETREL."
Certiorari — Appeal and Error — Final Judgments — Remedy.
' The writ of certiorari is not favored and will be refused when there is another adequate remedy; and a judgment dismissing a proceeding under the water-craft act (chapter 298, 8 Comp. Laws) for the reason that claimant had failed to prove that at the time of giving notice of his claim the owners were indebted to the contractor, is a final judgment, and the remedy by appeal provided by the statute is adequate.
Proceedings under the water-craft law by the Detroit Lumber Company against the auxiliary yacht “Petrel.” There was judgment for defendant, and petitioner brings certiorari.
Submitted November 25, 1908.
(Calendar No. 23,219½.)
Writ dismissed February 2, 1909.
Emanuel T. Berger, for petitioner.

Opinion:
Blair, C. J.
The proceedings in this case were instituted to, enforce a demand against a water craft, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 298 of the Complied Laws, sections 10788-10836, inclusive. At the conclusion of claimant's proofs, the circuit judge dismissed the proceedings and awarded judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that claimant had failed to prove that at the time of giving notice of his claim the owners of the craft were indebted to the contractor. Claimant applies to this court for the writ of certiorari to review this judgment.
We are of the opinion that the applicant has misconceived its remedy. The judgment is clearly a final judgment upon the merits, and the remedy by appeal provided by the statute in such case is adequate. Sections 10823-10827, inclusive. From an early day it has been held by t.hifl court that the remedy by certiorari should not be favored, and would generally be refused when another adequate remedy existed. Farrell v. Taylor, 12 Mich. 113; City of Ishpeming v. Maroney, 49 Mich. 226; U. S. Gypsum Co. v. Kent Circuit Judge, 150 Mich. 668; Detroit River Transit Co. v. Trust Co., 152 Mich. 91; In re Phillips, 154 Mich. 139. On the previous application of the petitioner for the writ of certiorari, it appeared that the circuit judge dismissed the claim, upon the ground that, the amount thereof being less than $100, the court did not have jurisdiction of the case. Detroit Lumber Co. v. Yacht Petrel, 153 Mich. 528. In that proceeding there was no determination upon the merits, but, on the contrary, the court held there was no jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the claim. In such a case the writ of certiorari was the most appropriate, if not the only adequate, remedy.
The application is denied.
Grant, Montgomery, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.