Tiedt v. Carstensen
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Citation | 16 N.W. 214,61 Iowa 334 |
| Parties | TIEDT v. CARSTENSEN AND OTHERS. |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1883 |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Bremer circuit court.
Certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Bremer county in establishing a road. The plaintiff caused certain witnesses to be subpœnaed, in order to prove by them the inexpediency of locating and establishing the proposed road. The court found that the supervisors proceeded illegally in establishing the road, and thereupon entered a judgment annulling and setting aside the order establishing the road. The defendants moved to retax the costs, and the court held, and so ordered upon the motion, that the costs and fees of witnesses subpœnaed by plaintiff to prove the inexpediency of establishing the road be not taxed against the defendants. The plaintiff appeals from this order.M. E. Billings, for appellant.
Gibson & Dauson, for appellees.
1. The petition of plaintiff alleges as a ground, among others, for issuing the writ, “that it is not expedient to establish the road upon the line proposed.” Witnesses were in attendance upon the court to testify upon the issue presented by this allegation. They were not, however, examined, as the court held that the road was not lawfully established on account of irregularities--“illegalities”--in the proceedings. Upon the motion to retax the costs it was held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover the witnesses' fees, for the reason that the court was not authorized to try and determine the issue involving the “expediency of the proposed road.” This ruling presents the only question in the case, namely: Is it competent for the court, in a proceeding by certiorari, to review the decision of the supervisors upon the question whether the public interest demands the road, and whether it is practicable and expedient to establish it?
2. Code, § 3216, provides that “the writ of certiorari may be granted whenever specially authorized by law, and especially in all cases where an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions is alleged to have exceeded his proper jurisdiction, or is otherwise acting illegally, when, in the judgment of the superior court, there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.” The proceeding by certiorari is intended as a remedy whereby the superior court may inquire into the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal or officer and determine whether the tribunal or officer “is acting illegally.” In this case there is no question of jurisdiction. We are, therefore, only to inquire, when is a tribunal “acting illegally” in the contemplation of this statute? When the law prescribes proceedings to be had by an officer or tribunal in cases pending before them, the omission of such proceedings are in violation of law, and the court or officer omitting them would, therefore, act illegally. In a word, if a tribunal, when determining matters before it which are within its jurisdiction, proceeds in a manner contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. Green, 45167.
...of the writ. Smith v. Board of Supervisors, 30 Iowa 531, 536;Hatch v. Board of Supervisors, 170 Iowa 82, 152 N.W. 28;Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa 334, 16 N.W. 214;McEvoy v. Cooper, 208 Iowa 649, 226 N.W. 13. This court has repeatedly held that the writ presents only a question of law, and d......
-
Pierce v. Green, 45167.
...the writ. Smith v. Board of Supervisors, 30 Iowa 531, 536; Hatch v. Board of Supervisors, 170 Iowa 82, 152 N.W. 28; Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa 334, 16 N.W. 214; McEvoy v. Cooper, 208 Iowa 649, 226 N.W. 13.This court has repeatedly held that the writ presents only a question of law, and do......
-
Eden Tp. School Dist. v. Carroll County Bd. of Ed., 53986
...was made in Staads v. Board of Trs. of Fireman's Ret. Pension Fund, 159 N.W.2d 485, 490 (Iowa 1968): 'Commencing with Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa 334, 16 N.W. 214, we have uniformly held that where the law clothes an inferior tribunal with authority to reach a decision on the facts submitt......
-
Davidson v. Whiteiiill
...judgment, and not a violation of any rule of law. Ketchum v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 494, 4 Pac. 492; Tiedt v. Carstensen, 61 Iowa, 334, 16 N. W. 214; Livingstone v. Rector of Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Law, Questions of fact are rarely, if ever, reviewable upon certiorari, so the decision of......