Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge

117 N.W. 1050, 154 Mich. 493, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 745

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1908

DocketCalendar No. 23,114½

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 N.W. 1050 (Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge, 117 N.W. 1050, 154 Mich. 493, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 745 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Blair, J.

This is an application for an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not vacate [494]*494his order denying a petition for change of venue in the condemnation proceedings reported as Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 153 Mich. 686. The respondent refused to grant a change of venue upon the sole ground that he had no jurisdiction or power to grant a change of venue in condemnation proceedings, regardless of the showing made. The trial judge was clearly right in his holding, unless the amendment of 1907 (Act No. 161, Pub. Acts 1907) has effected a change in the law as to such proceedings. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Monroe Circuit Judge, 144 Mich. 44.

Act No. 309, Pub. Acts 1905, provided:

“Each of said courts may change the venue of any criminal action pending therein, upon good cause shown, and shall change the venue of any civil action pending therein, upon the application,” etc.

The amendment of 1907 provides:

“ Each of the said courts, upon good cause shown, may change the venue in any cause pending therein,” etc.

We find no reasonable ground for determining that the legislature intended, by the use of the word “cause,” instead of the word “ action,” to extend the jurisdiction of the courts in civil cases. The words “any cause” were intended to embrace and have the same meaning as the words ‘ ‘ any criminal action ” and ‘ ‘ any civil action;” both classes of actions being brought under the same rule as to the character of the showing to be made. Manifestly the proviso was not intended to enlarge the jurisdiction, since it merely continued in force “any and all suits, proceedings, causes, or actions ” pending under the act of 1905, which this court had held did not apply in condemnation proceedings.

Application denied, with costs.

Montgomery, Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Blair, J.

This is an application for an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not vacate [494]*494his order denying a petition for change of venue in the condemnation proceedings reported as Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 153 Mich. 686. The respondent refused to grant a change of venue upon the sole ground that he had no jurisdiction or power to grant a change of venue in condemnation proceedings, regardless of the showing made. The trial judge was clearly right in his holding, unless the amendment of 1907 (Act No. 161, Pub. Acts 1907) has effected a change in the law as to such proceedings. Michigan, etc., R. Co. v. Monroe Circuit Judge, 144 Mich. 44.

Act No. 309, Pub. Acts 1905, provided:

“Each of said courts may change the venue of any criminal action pending therein, upon good cause shown, and shall change the venue of any civil action pending therein, upon the application,” etc.

The amendment of 1907 provides:

“ Each of the said courts, upon good cause shown, may change the venue in any cause pending therein,” etc.

We find no reasonable ground for determining that the legislature intended, by the use of the word “cause,” instead of the word “ action,” to extend the jurisdiction of the courts in civil cases. The words “any cause” were intended to embrace and have the same meaning as the words ‘ ‘ any criminal action ” and ‘ ‘ any civil action;” both classes of actions being brought under the same rule as to the character of the showing to be made. Manifestly the proviso was not intended to enlarge the jurisdiction, since it merely continued in force “any and all suits, proceedings, causes, or actions ” pending under the act of 1905, which this court had held did not apply in condemnation proceedings.

Application denied, with costs.

Montgomery, Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.W. 1050, 154 Mich. 493, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-rapids-indiana-railway-co-v-kalamazoo-circuit-judge-mich-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack