Court Opinion

ID: 9527967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:53.66468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:19.689560
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(concurring). This ease involved the grant or denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The only issue involved in the case, as in all habeas corpus cases, was the jurisdiction of the court, here the *64jurisdiction of the juvenile division below. We held that there was jurisdiction. With this holding we again express our concurrence. The great historic writ is a “palladium of liberty,” not a mere writ of error.- Once a court has the parties and the subject matter properly before it, as did the juvenile division in this case, its jurisdiction is not so feeble that it comes or goes with procedural errors made or resisted, objections claimed or foregone, proofs withheld or deficient, judgment sound or judgment reversible. Thus we properly denied the writ and upheld the involved jurisdiction of the Berrien county probate court.
The matter of probate court jurisdiction, sitting in juvenile division, will be found discussed in more detail in the case of Fritts v. Krugh, 354 Mich 97,
Reversed. Costs to appellants.
Black and Voelkeu, JJ., concurred with Smith, J.