TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boyce v. Bay Circuit Judge

Boyce v. Bay Circuit Judge.

Boyce v. Bay Circuit Judge, 265 N.W. 469 (Mich. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 11, 1936
Docket
No. Calendar 38,765
Judges
Bushnell, North, Fead, Wiest, Btjtzel, Sharpe, Potter, Toy
Citations
265 N.W. 469274 Mich. 5751936 Mich. LEXIS 797

Opinion of the Court — Bushnell

Bushnell, J.

This petition for writ of prohibition offers an opportunity for a discussion of the statutes relating to the transfer of causes, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § § 13999-14006; the power of a disqualified judge while application for transfer is pending and the authority of the presiding judge of the State under Act No. 104, Pub. Acts 1925 (3 Comp. Laws *576 1929, §§ 13765-13767), in such a situation. We restrain our desire to explore this field of the law because the office of circuit judge of the eighteenth judicial circuit is no longer occupied by Judge Houghton, who was claimed to be disqualified, but by his successor in office, Judge McCormick.

There is no longer any need for Judge Smith of the adjoining circuit, the thirty-fourth, to pass upon the matter, nor for Judge Cramton of the fortieth circuit to sit in the cause. The entire question has therefore become moot.

‘ ‘ The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ and should not and will not be granted where petitioner has an adequate remedy by some other proceedings.”

Rogers v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 243 Mich. 703 , and cases therein cited.

The writ is one of discretion and will be denied when the same result can be accomplished by the petitioner in causing her application for transfer to be dismissed, thereby returning the cause to the court of original jurisdiction, presided over by a judge who is not shown by the record to be disqualified.

.Neither party having prevailed and neither having called this court’s attention to the controlling issue, we will, in the exercise of our discretion, deny all costs. The writ is denied.

North, C. J., and Fead, Wiest, Btjtzel, Edward M. Sharpe, Potter, and Toy, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1944: 11947: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Burtrum v. Smith206 S.W.2d 558 (Mo. 1947)
  2. State Bar v. Ingham Circuit Judge12 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. 1944) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Burtrum v. Smith206 S.W.2d 558 (Mo. 1947)
  2. State Bar v. Ingham Circuit Judge12 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. 1944) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Rogers v. Judge, 221 N.W. 19 (Mich. 1928) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list