Pack v. Simpson

41 N.W. 850, 74 Mich. 28, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 602
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 8, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 N.W. 850 (Pack v. Simpson) 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
Pack v. Simpson, 41 N.W. 850, 74 Mich. 28, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 602 (Mich. 1889).

Opinion

Champlin, J.

This hearing is upon the return of the judge of the circuit court for the county of Alcona to a writ of certiorari issued to him, on the petition of Albert Pack, Folkert C. Folkerts, and Gfeorge Masters, directing said judge to return what proceedings have been had before [29]*29him, and what has been done by him, in the matter of the application of George Robinson to transfer a cause wherein he is complainant from the circuit court for the county of Alpena in chancery to the circuit court for the county of. Alcona in chancery, together with the testimony in full that was taken before him on the hearing of the application. The circuit judge has complied with the mandate of such writ.

He certifies that on August 10, 1888, an application was presented to him for the purpose of obtaining an order transferring the cause of George Robinson v. Albert Pack, Folkert C. Folkerts, and George Masters to the circuit court for the county of Alcona from the circuit court for the county of Alpena. A copy of the application is attached and made part of his return. This application was on the petition of George Robinson, which shows that both of the parties were residents of Alpena county; that Robert J. Kelley was elected to the office of circuit judge of said county, and entered upon the discharge of his duties on January 1, 1888, and that before he became such judge he was consulted and employed as counsel in the subject-matter to be litigated in such suit; that Hon. William H. Simpson, circuit judge of the county of Alcona, is not within the disqualification mentioned in section 6495, How. Stat.; that Alcona county is in a circuit adjoining the circuit in which Alpena county is embraced; that O. H. Smith, Esq., is complainant’s solicitor of record, and that he resides at the village of Harrisville, in Alcona county; and that George H. Sleator, the solicitor of record for defendants, resides in Alpena county. The petition was duly verified, and prayed for a removal of the cause to Alcona county.

On this application the circuit judge of Alcona county made an order fixing the time and place of hearing, and [30]*30directing notice to be given to the parties and their solicitors. A hearing was had before him on August 15, when Mr. J. B. Newton and Mr. W. E. Depew, attorneys, residing at Alpena, appeared for the application, and J. C. Shields, Esq., in opposition thereto. The judge directed a showing to be made in support of the application, when Mr. J. B. Newton was sworn in support thereof. His testimony was taken down by the official stenographer of the Alcona circuit, and is made a part of the return.

His testimony shows that he was solicitor of record for the complainant in the suit until August 7, 1888, when by his own consent an order was entered in the book of chancery orders, whereby O. H. Smith, Esq., was substituted as solicitor in his stead; that he, said Newton, resided at Alpena; that the bill was filed January 22, 1887, and after suit was commenced R. J. Kel- . ley, of Alpena, was employed as counsel, and in fact before the bill was filed; that he is, and since January 1, 1888, has been, circuit judge of the circuit of which Alpena county is a part, and in which the suit is pending; that the purpose of the substitution of Mr. Smith 'in his place might be with a , view of the present application for removal; that Judge Kelley is still counsel in the case, and that it is still the desire of the complainant and his expectation that Judge Kelley should assist in trying the case; that Judge Kelley had expressed his desire to try the case; and that it is his intention, and that is the reason for the motion for removal; that it was made at his request; that Judge Kelley came to him and talked the matter over, and it was through his desire that the motion was made; that determination to make the application was made several weeks ago by him and counsel for complainant, but was delayed on account of the absence of Judge Simpson.

[31]*31He also testified to a stipulation made between the solicitors of the respective parties, as follows:

In this cause, an order having been entered for the taking of proofs before a commissioner, it is hereby stipulated that such order be waived, and that the proofs in this cause be taken in open court, and that said cause be placed upon the docket for hearing at the May term, A. D. 1888., without further notice.
“ Dated April 12, 1888.”

Eespecting this stipulation, he further testified that it was talked that either Judge Simpson or Judge Cobb would be there to hold the May term, but there was no ■certainty of it. It was expected that there would be . another judge there, and that the case would be disposed cf at the May term, but there was no judge brought there. Admits a conversation 10 or 12 days before with counsel for defendants, in which he expressed himself as anxious to have the case disposed of at the coming term. He further testified that Judge Cobb was then holding a term of court at Alpena, which opened the day before, that he was there for the purpose of trying such .eases as Judge Kelley is interested in.

In opposition to the motion to remove, J. O. Shields was sworn, and testified as follows:

“I wish to state in reference to that stipulation that, when it was entered into between Mr. Newton and myself, the purpose of it, and sole purpose of it, as I understood it, was to get rid of the taking of testimony before the commissioner, and open the case so it might be put in shape to be heard and disposed of at the May term. At that time Judge Kelley had stated he expected that he would either have your honor (Judge Simpson) cr Judge Cobb dispose of the case, as he was interested in it. Hpon that information this stipulation was made. Again, from time to time, both before the making of this stipulation and since, and perhaps, to state it within the facts clearly, I should say I had two or three talks personally with Mr. Newton, and in none of them was there a hint or intimation of any purpose on the part of [32]*32the complainant to ask for an application of this kind. About ten or twelve days ago Judge Kelley showed me a telegram that he had received from Judge Cobb, saying that Judge Cobb would be present and open the present term of court, commencing yesterday, and wo,uld dispose of such cases as Judge Kelley might be interested in. I at once saw- Mr. Newton, I think in the course of an hour after Judge Kelley had given me the information, and told him of it, and my recollection is that Mr. NeAvton already kneAv of it, and stated that he had already heard the same thing. Then I stated to Mr. Newton, ‘ Now let us get together and let us get this case in readiness, and dispose of that Kobinson case;’ and to that he assented, and said then Ave would get at it and dispose of it.
“By the Court. When was that?
“A. About ten or twelve days ago. I went to work at the’ case .at once, never dreaming but Avhat it was positively settled that it should be disposed, of in the Alpena circuit, and devoted time to the preparation of the case, and had it in readiness. Judge Cobb is there now, and can hear the case and dispose of it.”

This was all the showing that was made; whereupon the said circuit judge made an order transferring the cause to the circuit court for the county of Alcona, in chancery. Upon this record counsel for the plaintiff in certiorari claim:

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

Related

Crowley, Milner & Co. v. MacOmb Circuit Judge
215 N.W. 29 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)
Peterson v. St. Clair Circuit Judge
106 N.W. 394 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Freud v. Wayne Circuit Judge
92 N.W. 109 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Grostick v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad
56 N.W. 24 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.W. 850, 74 Mich. 28, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pack-v-simpson-mich-1889.