State ex rel. Wood v. Judge of Kenosha Circuit Court

3 Wis. 809
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 Wis. 809 (State ex rel. Wood v. Judge of Kenosha Circuit Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Wood v. Judge of Kenosha Circuit Court, 3 Wis. 809 (Wis. 1854).

Opinion

By the Court,

Whiton, C. J.

The peremptory mandamus must be denied.

The judge of the first circuit has already decided [811]*811the matter in controversy between the parties in interest, and we cannot in this way correct any errors which he may have committed. Admitting that the position taken by the relator is correct; that Reas should have been ordered to pay the costs, still a mandamus does not lie to correct any such error.

To direct in this way the judge to decide the questions involved, would be a gross perversion of the proper office of a writ of mandamus. Peop. vs. Oneida Com. Pleas, 21 Wend., 20 ; Elkins vs. Attheram, 2 Denio, 191; 10 Pick, 244 ; Gray vs. Fidge, 11 id., 189 ; Moore, petitioner, 18 id., 443 ; Gibbs vs Hampden. 19 id. 298.

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

Related

Fong, Auditor v. Sapienza, Judge
39 Haw. 79 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1951)
Saint Michael's Monastery v. Steele
167 P. 349 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Wis. 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-wood-v-judge-of-kenosha-circuit-court-wis-1854.