St. Clair Tunnel Co. v. St. Clair Circuit Judge

• Decision Date: 23 September 1897
• Citation: 72 N.W. 249,114 Mich. 417
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ST. CLAIR TUNNEL CO. v. ST. CLAIR CIRCUIT JUDGE.

72 N.W. 249

114 Mich. 417

ST. CLAIR TUNNEL CO. v. ST. CLAIR CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 23, 1897

Mandamus by the St. Clair Tunnel Company, relator, against the St Clair circuit judge. Writ denied.

Long C.J. and Montgomery, J., dissenting.

Geer &amp Williams, for relator.

Chadwick & McIlwain, for respondent.

MOORE J.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the circuit judge to vacate an order permitting an amendment to be made to a declaration in the case of David Turner against the St. Clair Tunnel Company.

The first question to be considered is whether, inasmuch as the writ of mandamus is a discretionary one, we will review the action in this proceeding. In Insurance Co. v. Donovan (Mich.) 70 N.W. 582, it is stated: "It is a general rule that the writ will not lie where the law has provided another remedy. It is said a writ of mandamus issues because there is no other adequate remedy, and justice and good government require a redress of the wrong. A court will not be required, by this writ, to take any action when another remedy is provided. It will not take the place of an appeal or writ of error. Merrill, Mand. �� 201, 209. To this rule an exception is made if the slowness of ordinary legal forms is likely to produce such immediate injury or mischief as ought to be prevented." In that case the writ was denied. In the case of Pratt v. Montcalm Circuit Judge, 105 Mich. 502, 63 N.W. 507, it was said by Justice Hooker: "I am also of the opinion that the relator is not entitled to the writ of mandamus. The question of amendment is one wholly within the discretion of the trial court. How. Ann. St. � 7631 et seq.; Railroad Co. v Forbes, 30 Mich. 165; Polhemus v. Bank, 27 Mich. 44; King v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 41 Mich. 727 49 N.W. 925. This being conceded, the determination of the circuit judge is not subject to review, except in cases of abuse of discretion, or where it results in depriving a party of a right of action, in either of which cases it has been held to be reviewable upon error. Pangborn v. Insurance Co., 67 Mich. 683, 35 N.W. 814; Browne v. Moore, 32 Mich. 254. Until recently, these questions have been raised after judgment upon error. *** If it be said that interlocutory orders such as this may go to the entire cause of action, the answer is that, under the case of Pangborn v. Insurance Co., 67 Mich. 683, 35 N.W. 814, the court may review such question upon writ of error; and hence, under a familiar rule, mandamus cannot be resorted to, for the reason that another adequate remedy exists. Merrill, Mand. � 201, and cases cited; Welch v. Hull, 73 Mich. 47, 40 N.W. 797. The same may be said of questions involving abuse of discretion. They may be corrected upon writ of error, and there can seldom be occasion to interrupt the proceedings in trial courts to review interlocutory...