People v. Brannen

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Brannen

138 N.W. 1050, 173 Mich. 411, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 1026

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 17, 1912

DocketDocket No. 136

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 N.W. 1050 (People v. Brannen) 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

People v. Brannen, 138 N.W. 1050, 173 Mich. 411, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 1026 (Mich. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

In bastardy proceedings respondent was convicted by a jury. A motion for a new trial was denied. No judgment has been entered. Respondent assigned errors and settled a bill of exceptions, which is brought into this court by writ of error.

A writ of error lies in any case only to review a judgment. Aside from this, the practice in such cases has been misconceived. We are aware that in one, and, perhaps, in more than one, case the proceeding appears to have been reviewed upon writ of error; no notice being taken of the use of the writ. See Hull v. People, 41 Mich. 167 (2 N. W. 175). The proceeding is, however, purely statutory, not after the course of the common law, and is summary. No judgment known to the common [412]*412law follows the verdict, and the judgment rendered is final. 2 Comp. Laws, §§ 5904, 5905 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] §§ 4989, 4990). The only remedy available to an aggrieved party is by writ of certiorari. Cross v. People, 8 Mich. 113.

The writ must be dismissed.

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

Pee Cubiam.

In bastardy proceedings respondent was convicted by a jury. A motion for a new trial was denied. No judgment has been entered. Respondent assigned errors and settled a bill of exceptions, which is brought into this court by writ of error.

A writ of error lies in any case only to review a judgment. Aside from this, the practice in such cases has been misconceived. We are aware that in one, and, perhaps, in more than one, case the proceeding appears to have been reviewed upon writ of error; no notice being taken of the use of the writ. See Hull v. People, 41 Mich. 167 (2 N. W. 175). The proceeding is, however, purely statutory, not after the course of the common law, and is summary. No judgment known to the common [412]*412law follows the verdict, and the judgment rendered is final. 2 Comp. Laws, §§ 5904, 5905 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] §§ 4989, 4990). The only remedy available to an aggrieved party is by writ of certiorari. Cross v. People, 8 Mich. 113.

The writ must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.W. 1050, 173 Mich. 411, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brannen-mich-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack