Mitchell v. Boardman
| Decision Date | 29 June 1887 |
| Citation | 10 A. 452,79 Me. 469 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. BOARDMAN, Judge, etc. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
From supreme judicial court, Waldo county.
Petition for mandamus to compel the respondent, judge of the police court of the city of Belfast, to issue a warrant of search and seizure.
R. W. Rogers, for petitioner. W. P. Thompson and R. F. Dunton, for respondent.
In this case the petitioner, in his individual capacity, applies for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, the judge of the police court of the city of Belfast, to issue a warrant of search and seizure upon his complaint in due form under oath. It has for a very long time been well-settled law in this state that Sanger v. County Com'rs, 25 Me. 291-296. No private right distinct from that of the public, is involved here. It is the refusal of a public officer to act in a public matter,—an officer of the government in a matter which relates to the enforcement of a public law,—and if he has violated his duty, or refuses to perform it, there is other remedy more appropriate and efficient than this. The cases cited by counsel are unlike this, and in those cited from our own state this question was not raised. Were it otherwise, in this case no available remedy would result from granting the writ. The warrant asked for, if issued, could only be against such liquors as were in the building described, at the date of the complaint. If the officer were to levy it upon any other, he would do so at his peril; and so long a time has elapsed since the complaint was made, and must in cases of this kind always elapse before a judgment can be obtained, that the issuing of the warrant would be a useless act, and more especially in this case as the building described in the complaint has been destroyed by fire,—an historical fact of which the court will take judicial cognizance. Under these facts the court will not grant a mandamus, even if the petitioner were otherwise entitled. It would be an idle and useless ceremony. Williams v. County Com'rs, 35 Me. 349; Woodbury v. County Com'rs, 40 Me. 304; Bane v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Davis v. Willis
... ... Mayor, 81 Mich. 123, 45 N.W ... 964; Thomas v. Hamilton, 101 Mich. 387, 59 N.W. 658; ... State v. Inhabitants, etc., 25 Me. 297; Mitchell ... v. Boardmen, 79 Me. 469, 10 A. 452; Weeks v ... Smith, 81 Me. 538, 18 A. 325; State v. Co., 68 ... S.C. 540, 47 S.E. 979 at 983; ... ...
-
People ex rel. Bartlett v. Busse
...39 Wash. 65, 80 Pac. 1001,109 Am. St. Rep. 858;Alger v. Seaver, 138 Mass. 331;Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 265, 34 Pac. 707;Mitchell v. Boardman, 79 Me. 469, 10 Atl. 452;People v. Whipple, 41 Mich. 548, 49 N. W. 922;Cady v. Ihnken, 129 Mich. 466, 89 N. W. 72;Sweet v. Smith, 153 Mich. 674, 117 N.......
-
State ex rel. Skilton v. Miller
...from the general public, and his application for such writ was properly denied by the superior court.' Similarly, in Mitchell v. Boardman, 79 Me. 469, 10 A. 452, it is stated in the 'The court will not grant a writ of mandamus on the petition of a private citizen to compel a judge of a poli......
-
Dorcourt Co. v. Great Northern Paper Co.
...substantial benefit to the relator, will not be enforced by mandamus.' See Rex v. Justices, 2 B. & A. 391; 22 E.C.L. 108; Mitchell v. Boardman, 79 Me. 469, 10 A. 452; Tennant v. Crocker, Mayor, 85 Mich. 328, 48 N.W. 577; State v. Board of Health, 49 N.J.L. 349, 8 A. The following statements......