Heyn v. Farrar
| Decision Date | 17 April 1877 |
| Citation | 36 Mich. 258 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frederick W. Heyn v. Charles F. Farrar and another |
Submitted on Briefs April 6, 1877
Certiorari to Circuit Court Commissioner of Ottawa County.
L. N Keating, for plaintiff in certiorari, cited: Comp. L. 1871 §§ 5596, 6428; Drake on Attachment, § 411; Bower v. Towne, 12 Mich. 233; Arnold v Nye, 11 Mich. 456; Whipple v. Williams, 1 Mich. 115.
No counsel appeared for defendants in certiorari.
Proceedings affirmed, with costs.
This is a certiorari to review the proceedings of a circuit court commissioner, dissolving an attachment sued out by plaintiff against defendants in the Muskegon circuit court. The action was had by Edwin Baxter, circuit court commissioner for the adjoining county of Ottawa, founded on a showing that J. E. Jamison, the only circuit court commissioner for Muskegon, was disqualified. The facts of disqualification were, that Jamison was engaged in practicing law with Mr. Keating, the plaintiff's attorney, and that a portion of the papers in the cause were in his handwriting, and that he had told the defendants' attorney that he was interested as counsel and could not act as commissioner in the matter.
On the hearing of the application by Mr. Baxter, Heyn appeared by counsel specially, and after a preliminary motion for security, moved to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the application could only be made to the circuit judge or commissioner of Muskegon.
Heyn's affidavit averred that Jamison was never employed as his counsel. It did not deny his connection with Keating, nor his action in drawing the papers, nor his statement of disqualification; and Jamison and Keating made no affidavits. The affidavit for certiorari is also silent on this.
The statute authorizing the commissioner of an adjoining county to act in such cases was passed two years after the act for the dissolution of attachments, and declares "that in all cases where, by the laws of this state, any duties are required to be performed by a circuit court commissioner of the proper county, if such circuit court commissioner be attorney, solicitor or counsel in such suit or matter, or be a party thereto, or otherwise interested or unable to act or incapable of acting therein, such duties may be performed by a notary public of such county, being an attorney of the supreme court of this state; or, if there be no such notary public in such county, then such duties may be performed by a circuit court commissioner of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mau v. Stoner
...815; Meyer v. San Diego, id., 434; Moses v. Julian, 45 N. H., 52; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall., 388; Brown v. Byrne, Walker's Ch., 453; Heyn v. Farrar, 36 Mich. 258; Const. Lim., 517; 1 Bl. Com., 91; Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 340; R. R. Co. v. Summers, 113 Ind. 10.) When the plaintiff in error ......
-
State ex rel. Mau v. Ausherman
...it is held that a court commissioner cannot act when his law partner is interested in the case. (Brown v. Byrne, Walker, Ch. 453; Heyn v. Farrar, 36 Mich. 258.) If order adjudging Mau guilty of contempt is void, no judge can validate it. It has been doubted whether a court commissioner can ......
- Barden v. Briscoe