Groves v. Richmond

Decision Date27 April 1880
Citation5 N.W. 763,53 Iowa 570
PartiesGROVES AND OTHERS v. RICHMOND AND OTHERS.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Emmett district court.

The plaintiffs filed their petition in the court below, praying for a writ of certiorari, directed to the defendants, who are members of the board of supervisors of Emmett county, requiring them to certify up certain proceedings taken by said board in relation to the removal of the county seat of said county, that said proceedings might be annulled, upon the ground that said board acted illegally in ordering an election upon the question of the removal of the county seat at a time not authorized by law, and further acted illegally in erasing names of legal voters from a remonstrance against said removal, and illegally counted the names of certain persons upon the petition who were in fact not legal voters, and counted others whose names were also upon the remonstrance.

The writ of certiorari was duly issued, and the defendants filed their return thereto, in which they certified up fully the record of their proceedings, with original papers filed and facts before them whereby every material allegation of the plaintiffs' petition was put in issue. Whereupon, the defendants filed their application for a change of venue, upon the ground that a fair trial could not be had in Emmett county, before an impartial jury, because of the prejudice of the inhabitants of said county. The application, being in due form, was sustained by the court, and the venue was changed to the district court of Palo Alto county for trial. Plaintiffs appeal.Soper & Allen and J. W. Cory, for appellants.

Geo. E. Clark and J. H. Call, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

In Keniston v. Hewitt, 48 Iowa, 679, it was determined the district court has no jurisdiction in certiorari in civil cases, and that such jurisdiction is exclusive in the circuit court. The decision in that case had not been published when this cause was determined in the court below, and jurisdiction was entertained without objection, and no objection is made in this court. We have held in all cases where it appears that that there is a want of jurisdiction in the court below, or where the ruling made is in excess of the authority or power of the court, that it is the duty of this court to recognize such want of jurisdiction, even if no objection be made. See St. Joseph Manufacturing Co. v. Harrington, decided at the present term. 5 N. W. REP. 568, (2 Iowa, 654.)

It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Latta v. Utterback
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 16 d4 Dezembro d4 1926
    ...cannot be waived. Dicks v. Hatch, 10 Iowa, 380; Walters v. The Steamboat Mollie Dozier, 24 Iowa, 192, 95 Am. Dec. 722; Groves v. Richmond, 53 Iowa, 570, 5 N. W. 763;Cerro Gordo Co. v. Wright County, 59 Iowa, 485, 13 N. W. 645;Orcutt v. Hanson, 71 Iowa, 514, 32 N. W. 482;State v. Van Beek, 8......
  • Chi., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Fremont Cnty.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 28 d5 Setembro d5 1928
    ...unauthorized judgment is rendered is not a party. 2 Cyc. 626. And see St. Joseph Manufacturing Co. v. Harrington, 53 Iowa, 380 ;Groves v. Richmond, 53 Iowa, 570 . And in the second place the notices of appeal to this court recite that ‘the county of Woodbury has appealed from the judgment o......
  • Groves v. Richmond
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 27 d2 Abril d2 1880

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT