Case Name: CATTERMOLE v. IONIA CIRCUIT JUDGE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1904-04-05
Citations: 136 Mich. 274
Docket Number: Calendar No. 20,339
Parties: CATTERMOLE v. IONIA CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 274–281

Head Matter:
CATTERMOLE v. IONIA CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Capias ad Respondendum — Quashing Writ — Mandamus.
Mandamus will not lie to compel a circuit judge to vacate an order quashing a writ of capias ad respondendum, since the order is final, and reviewable on error.
Mandamus by Walter J. Cattermole to compel Frank D. M. Davis, circuit judge of Ionia county, to set aside an order quashing a writ of capias ad respondendum.
Submitted February 2, 1904.
(Calendar No. 20,339.)
Writ denied April 5, 1904. .
Miller & McKenna and Chaddock & Scully, for relator.
A. A. Ellis, for respondent.

Opinion:
Grant, J.
The relator obtained the arrest of one Reuben E. Van Houten on a capias ad respondendum. The court, on the motion of Van Houten's attorneys, quashed the writ and proceedings thereunder, and discharged the defendant. The relator, plaintiff in the suit, applies to this court for the writ of mandamus to review this judgment of the court and compel it to be set aside.
Is mandamus the proper remedy ? It is a rule of almost universal application that this writ will not be entertained when there is another complete and adequate remedy. The judgment or order in this case is final. It has disposed of the plaintiff's case as effectually as though there had been a trial and judgment. He clearly has a remedy by writ of error. Sheridan v. Briggs, 53 Mich. 569 (19 N. W. 189); Paulus v. Grobben, 104 Mich. 42 (62 N. W. 160); Shaw v. Ashford, 110 Mich. 534 (68 N. W. 281); De Long v. Briggs, 47 Mich. 625 (11 N. W. 412); Brown v. Kelley, 20 Mich. 27; Marble v. Curran, 63 Mich. 283 (29 N. W. 725).
In Dages v. Sanilac Circuit Judge, 122 Mich. 490 (81 N. W. 355), the circuit court entered an order quashing a writ of replevin with costs,' and the plaintiff sought to review the case in this court by mandamus. It was held that the order was final, and was reviewable upon writ of error, citing several authorities, and the writ was denied.
It is true that we have recently entertained applications of this character, but evidently the question of remedy was.not raised. In principle we see no difference between this and Dages v. Sanilac Circuit Judge, and the other cases cited.
It follows that the writ must be denied.
The other Justices concurred.