Maynard v. Ingham Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Maynard v. Ingham Circuit Judge

83 N.W. 102, 124 Mich. 465, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 549

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 83 N.W. 102 (Maynard v. Ingham 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

Maynard v. Ingham Circuit Judge, 83 N.W. 102, 124 Mich. 465, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 549 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to require respondent to quash an indictment. In People v. Thompson, 108 Mich. 583 (66 N. W. 478), we held (following the authority of Palms v. Campau, 11 Mich. 109), that we would not, in advance of a final determination of a case, review the action of a circuit judge in refusing to quash an indictment. It was said in that case that the practice ought to be uniform, and the fact was then stated that the court had, in numerous cases not reported, adhered to the same rule. It was strenuously insisted, both on the original application and on a motion [466]*466for a rehearing, that in view of exceptional circumstances, and of the great expense involved both to the accused and to the State, and of the disgrace which might follow an unauthorized conviction, an exception should be made of that case. ' These considerations were not deemed sufficient to justify a departure from settled practice. That case has since been steadily adhered to. In view of this settled practice, we must deny the motion.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus to require respondent to quash an indictment. In People v. Thompson, 108 Mich. 583 (66 N. W. 478), we held (following the authority of Palms v. Campau, 11 Mich. 109), that we would not, in advance of a final determination of a case, review the action of a circuit judge in refusing to quash an indictment. It was said in that case that the practice ought to be uniform, and the fact was then stated that the court had, in numerous cases not reported, adhered to the same rule. It was strenuously insisted, both on the original application and on a motion [466]*466for a rehearing, that in view of exceptional circumstances, and of the great expense involved both to the accused and to the State, and of the disgrace which might follow an unauthorized conviction, an exception should be made of that case. ' These considerations were not deemed sufficient to justify a departure from settled practice. That case has since been steadily adhered to. In view of this settled practice, we must deny the motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.W. 102, 124 Mich. 465, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-v-ingham-circuit-judge-mich-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack