State ex rel. Lembke v. Bechdel

• Citation: 37 N.W. 338,38 Minn. 278
• Parties: State of Minnesota ex rel. Emma C. Lembke v. Frank Bechdel
• Decision Date: 16 April 1888
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

37 N.W. 338

38 Minn. 278

State of Minnesota ex rel. Emma C. Lembke v. Frank Bechdel

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 16, 1888

Habeas corpus. Appeal by relator from a judgment of the district court for Scott county, and from an order of the same court vacating an order of a court commissioner, and directing judgment for respondent.

Henry J. Gjertsen and Sillas S. Fallars, for appellant.

R. A. & F. C. Irwin and H. J. Peck, for respondent.

OPINION

Dickinson, J. ^[1]

The relator, claiming to be the mother of an infant which was in the custody of the respondent, sought, by means of a writ of habeas corpus, to have the custody of the child awarded to her. The petition was made to the court commissioner of Scott county, who directed the issuance of the writ, returnable before himself. Upon the return of the writ the testimony of several witnesses was given orally bearing upon the question whether the relator or the respondent ought to be intrusted with the care of the child and thereupon that officer determined the facts of the case and that the relator was entitled to have the care and custody of the child, and judgment was directed to that effect. The court commissioner caused to be filed, in the office of the clerk of the district court, a certified statement of the testimony presented before him; and thereupon the respondent made a motion before the Hon. James C. Edson, the judge of that court, for an order vacating the order of the court commissioner, and remanding the infant to the custody of him, the respondent. This application was heard and determined, without objection, upon the certified statement of the testimony. Upon this the court made specific findings of fact, and particularly that the relator was not a proper person to have the care of the child, and that the same should be awarded to the respondent. Judgment was directed and entered accordingly, and the relator appealed both from the judgment and from the order therefor.

The authority of the court commissioner to hear and determine the matter in question is not denied, the real controversy being as to the power of the district judge to vacate the order of the court commissioner, and to redetermine the matter, as was done. The jurisdiction of the court commissioner in such cases can only be sustained upon the theory that in such proceedings he has the power of, and acts as, a judge of the district court. The statute regulating the issuance of the writ only authorizes an application therefor to the supreme or district court, "or to any judge thereof," (Gen. St. 1878, c. 80, § 23;) and, by the constitution, the power of a court commissioner is only such as may be exercised by a judge of the district court at chambers. Const. art. 6, § 15. The proceeding in question is of a judicial character, and the determination must be given the same effect as if it had been made by a judge of the district court. Whatever remedy there may be for errors committed in the course of such a proceeding, the court has no...