Maclean v. Wayne Circuit Judge

• Decision Date: 08 February 1884
• Citation: 52 Mich. 257,18 N.W. 396
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MACLEAN v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.

18 N.W. 396

52 Mich. 257

MACLEAN v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 8, 1884

When a court of competent jurisdiction becomes possessed of a case the authority continues, subject only to the appellate jurisdiction until the matter is finally disposed of and no court of co-ordinate jurisdiction is at liberty to interfere with its action.

The superior court of Detroit is a court co-ordinate in jurisdiction with the circuit courts of the state and is only limited territorially.

COOLEY, C.J.

This is an application for a mandamus to vacate a restraining order made by the respondent in a suit instituted in the Wayne circuit court in chancery, by James E. Scripps against the relator, and also for a writ of prohibition to stay further proceedings in that suit. Respondent has filed his answer to the application, and counsel have been heard upon it. The important facts upon which the application is based may be briefly stated. The relator, in an action instituted by him in the superior court of Detroit, recovered against Scripps a considerable judgment. The superior court is a court of jurisdiction in matters of law and equity, co-ordinate with that of the circuit courts of this state, and limited only territorially. After the recovery a motion was made by the defendant for a new trial, which was argued in the superior court and denied. The defendant then removed the case to this court by writ of error, and at the last October term the judgment of the superior court was affirmed. 17 N.W. 815. At the present term a motion was made and argued for a rehearing, which was denied. Ante, 209. The purpose of these proceedings in this court was of course to obtain a new trial. While this was the position of the case, the suit was instituted in the Wayne circuit court. The bill alleges misconduct in the jury in the principal suit and asks to have the judgment canceled because of it. Though not in terms praying for a new trial, the bill manifestly has that for its purpose, and is as much a bill for a new trial as if that had been the relief expressly prayed.

From this statement of facts it will be very evident the circuit judge has made a mistake in assuming jurisdiction of the case and making orders in it. The matter is not one which, under the circumstances, can come under his cognizance; other courts have control of the controversy with all its incidents, and have ample competency to do in...