State ex rel. Gold v. Secrest

• Decision Date: 25 May 1885
• Citation: 23 N.W. 545,33 Minn. 381
• Parties: State ex rel. Thomas Gold v. Ambrose Secrest
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

23 N.W. 545

33 Minn. 381

State ex rel. Thomas Gold v. Ambrose Secrest

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 25, 1885

Appeal by the relator from an order of the district court for Washington county, McCluer, J., presiding, refusing a peremptory writ of mandamus. The affidavit of relator, as recited in the alternative writ, stated that on August 19 1884, on relator's complaint, the respondent, a justice of the peace of Baytown, and village justice of the village of South Stillwater, in that county, issued a warrant and caused the arrest of one Yorks, charged by relator with assault. Yorks having pleaded not guilty and being brought to trial, the respondent refused to proceed further, on the ground that he had not jurisdiction, the relator and Yorks being both residents of the city of Stillwater in the same county, in which city the assault is alleged to have been committed. The writ commanded respondent to proceed to hear try and determine the cause and enter judgment therein, or to show cause, etc.

The respondent's answer admits these allegations, and states that, after determining that he had not jurisdiction, he discharged Yorks from custody.

On the writ and answer, the relator moved for judgment that a peremptory writ issue, and the respondent moved that the alternative writ be discharged.

The decision of McCluer, J., after stating the facts and considering the provisions of the charter of the city of Stillwater as to the jurisdiction of the municipal court of that city and of justices of the peace, proceeds as follows:

"I am satisfied therefore that the respondent had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case brought before him, and that his holding that he had not such jurisdiction and refusing to proceed with the cause was error. The question then arises can this error be reached by mandamus? The statute provides (Gen. St. 1878, c. 80, § 2:) 'It (the writ of mandamus) may be issued to any inferior tribunal corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; but though it may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, it cannot control the judicial discretion.' The question of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action is always present in all judicial proceedings; it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and, when raised, must be judicially determined. Whether it be clear or doubtful does not change the nature of the question. If it be presented, considered and decided such decision involves and is the result of a judicial decision, which, by express terms of the statute, as well as the general scope and power of the writ as always understood, cannot be controlled by mandamus. Some looseness of expression has crept into cases decided by respectable tribunals, and courts have sometimes strained the powers of this writ in cases where great wrongs have appeared to be done and no relief was open to the sufferer; but in all the well-considered cases that I have examined the principles seem to be well settled,...