Thompson v. School Dist. Number six of Crockery

• Decision Date: 15 October 1872
• Citation: 25 Mich. 483
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: William Thompson v. School District Number Six of Crockery

25 Mich. 483

William Thompson v. School District Number Six of Crockery

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 15, 1872

Submitted on Briefs July 13, 1872.

Error to Ottawa Circuit.

Judgment of the circuit court in dismissing this writ of certiorari, and the judgment of the recorder, reversed, and plaintiff in error recover his costs.

Boynton & Pratt, for plaintiff in error.

Akeley & Stewart, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Christiancy Ch. J.

School district number six, of the township of Crockery (no part of which is included in the city of Grand Haven), brought a suit before the recorder of that city, against Thompson, for the tuition of one of his children. The summons was issued by the recorder as such, commanding the defendant to appear before him in that capacity, and the record is signed by him as such.

Objection was duly taken by the defendant to the recorder's jurisdiction, both as to the person of the defendant, and the subject-matter. These objections were overruled, and the recorder proceeded to try the case, and rendered a judgment against the defendant Thompson.

Thompson then proceeded to remove the cause to the circuit court for the county of Ottawa, by writ of certiorari, taking his proceedings under the provisions of Compiled Laws 1857, §§ 3868 to 3884, in reference to certiorari from courts of justices of the peace. By the return of the recorder, it appears that he claimed to have the power of a justice of the peace under the charter of the city of Grand Haven (2 Sess. L. 1867, p. 488, § 39), and under section five of the justices' act, as amended in 1865 (Sess. L. 1865, p. 156), on the ground that the township of Crockery is an adjoining town to Spring Lake, and that the city comprises part of this township.

The circuit court disposed of the case by the following order:

"It satisfactorily appearing to the court now here, that the recorder of the city of Grand Haven had no jurisdiction over the person, or the subject-matter in dispute, and that the judgment rendered by said recorder upon the trial of said cause, is wholly void, and of no effect, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged by the court now here, that the writ of certiorari be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, without costs to either party."

Thompson now brings the case to this court by writ of error, and assigns for error: 1st, that the judgment of the circuit court is inconsistent with, and contrary to, the finding of the court as stated in the judgment; 2d, that the court erred in not reversing the recorder's judgment, after finding that the recorder had no jurisdiction; and 3d, that the court dismissed the certiorari without affirming or reversing, in whole or in part, the judgment of the recorder, or giving costs. It is true, the order dismissing the writ without reversing or affirming the judgment, and without costs, if left to stand as the conclusion of law from the premises stated in it, would seem to be inconsequential and inconsistent with the premises. If the premises were correct, that the judgment of the recorder was void for want of jurisdiction, then the dismissal of the writ of certiorari, without reversing or affirming the judgment, in whole or in part, was clearly erroneous, if the circuit court had jurisdiction of the case under the writ of certiorari.

It is urged by the defendant in error that, if the recorder's court is not to be regarded as the court of a justice of the peace, under section thirty-nine of the charter (as plaintiff in error insists it is not), then, the certiorari issued by the circuit court, in conformity with the provisions of the justices' act, gave the circuit court no jurisdiction, because, as defendant in error insists, the circuit courts have not, like the Supreme Court, any general superintending or supervisory control over inferior courts and tribunals, so as to enable them to issue a common-law writ of certiorari. It is true that the statute organizing the circuit courts does not purport to give this power: Comp. L., 1857, §§ 3418, 3423.

But the constitution (Art. VI, § 8) seems to give to the circuit courts this power as clearly as section three of the same article gives it to the Supreme Court, subject, of course, to the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. And though the proceedings for obtaining the writ seem to have been taken in...