In re Radford

• Decision Date: 10 December 1909
• Citation: 123 N.W. 546,159 Mich. 91
• Parties: In re RADFORD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

159 Mich. 91

123 N.W. 546

In re RADFORD.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 10, 1909.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Wayne County; James O. Murfin, Judge.

Charges were filed against George W. Radford in disbarment proceedings in the circuit court, to which he demurred. To review an order overruling his demurrer, he applies for writ of certiorari. Writ denied.

Argued before BLAIR, C. J., and GRANT, MONTGOMERY, McALVAY, and BROOKE, JJ. Thomas A. E. Weadock, for petitioner.

Charles T. Wilkins and Chas. W. Casgrain, amici curiae.

McALVAY, J.

Pending proceedings before the circuit court for Wayne County for the disbarment of petitioner, he applies to this court for a writ of certiorari to review the action of such court in overruling his demurrer to the charges filed against him. Upon the filing of the petition in this court, briefs were requested from both parties as to whether the issuance of the writ of certiorari was the proper practice at this stage of disbarment proceedings. The Legislature by Act No. 310, p. 484, Pub. Acts 1905, made a change in the practice, as to a review of certain questions by this court on certiorari, as follows: ‘Whenever in any action at law in a circuit court * * * the issue raised on a demurrer * * * shall be decided adversely to the party filing such * * * demurrer * * * the decision may be reviewed by writ of certiorari forthwith.’ Before this enactment, the practice in this state, with few, if any, exceptions, had been not to allow a writ of certiorari before a final decision in a case by an inferior court.

It is urged by petitioner that proceedings of this kind are fairly within the statute, and are actions at law, and therefore that he is entitled to this writ under the provisions of the statute; and, further, if not included within the terms of the statute, in these proceedings such a case is made that the court should interfere to prevent great injury which may befall petitioner if denied. It is also urged that the practice in such proceedings has never been fixed by this court, and also that the circumstances of this case warrant this court, in the fair exercise of its discretion, to issue that writ for the purpose of at this time determining the questions of law presented. Of these contentions the first must be determined against relator. In no sense can such proceedings be called an action at law. Like contempt proceedings, proceedings for disbarment are the exercise on the part of a court of its inherent right and power to preserve the orderly administration of justice. The conduct of every officer of a court is always the subject of supervision and inquiry on the part of the court. This court has held that proceedings for contempt were not within the statute. While contempt proceedings are regulatory of the individual conduct of all parties in the presence of the court and elsewhere to preserve due respect for it and to prevent interference with the orderly course of business, and preserve its dignity, yet such proceedings are necessarily the exercise of inherent power and right of self-preservation. So proceedings for disbarment, although not in the nature of police regulations, are taken by courts to protect the administration of justice, and to guard the interests of litigants against the rapacity or cupidity of...