Mardian v. Daboll

• Decision Date: 03 October 1898
• Citation: 76 N.W. 497,118 Mich. 353
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MARDIAN v. DABOLL, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

76 N.W. 497

118 Mich. 353

MARDIAN v. DABOLL, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 3, 1898

Original mandamus by the people, on the relation of Rudolph Mardian, against Sherman B. Daboll, acting Wayne circuit judge. Writ denied.

William F. Connolly, for relator.

Walters & Walters, for respondent.

HOOKER, J.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the vacation of an order appointing a receiver. It has been repeatedly held that orders appointing receivers, whereby the possession of property is devested, are appealable. See Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201; People v. Jones, 33 Mich. 303; Taylor v. Sweet, 40 Mich. 736; Morey v. Grant, 48 Mich. 330, 12 N.W. 202; Perrin v. Lepper, 56 Mich. 351, 23 N.W. 39.

It is a well-settled rule that mandamus will not lie when there is another adequate remedy. The following Michigan authorities will be found to sustain this rule: People v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 1 Doug. 302; People v. Wayne County Court Judge, 1 Mich. 359; People v. Circuit Judge, 19 Mich. 296; People v. Allegan Circuit Judge, 29 Mich. 487; O'Brien v. Tallman, 36 Mich. 13; Stall v. Diamond, 37 Mich. 429; Olson v. Circuit Judge, 49 Mich. 85, 13 N.W. 369; Delhi School Dist. v. Ingham, 49 Mich. 432, 13 N.W. 806; Lloyd v. Circuit Judge, 56 Mich. 236, 23 N.W. 28; To view preceding link please click here Perrin v. Lepper, 56 Mich. 351, 23 N.W. 39; Scott v. Circuit Judges, 58 Mich. 314, 25 N.W. 200; Burt v. Circuit Judge, 82 Mich. 251, 46 N.W. 380; Eyke v. Lange, 90 Mich. 592, 51 N.W. 680; Corby v. Circuit Judge, 96 Mich. 11, 55 N.W. 386; Thomas v. Circuit Judge, 97 Mich. 608, 57 N.W. 188; McGrath, Mand. Cases, No. 853; Eyke v. Lange, 104 Mich. 26, 63 N.W. 535; Hall v. Donovan, 111 Mich. 395, 69 N.W. 643; Aldrich v. Donovan, 111 Mich. 525, 69 N.W. 1108. In the case of Hall v. Donovan we applied the general rule, and held that an order exactly like the one before us was appealable, and refused to compel its vacation by mandamus, although clearly improvident. In that case we cited the case of Scott v. Circuit Judges as directly in point. The same disposition of a similar case is found in Thomas v. Circuit Judge, 97 Mich. 608, 57 N.W. 188 (McGrath, Mand. Cases, No. 853). The writ is denied. The other justices concurred.