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

3 Wis. 809
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1854·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

3 Wis. 809 (State ex rel. Wood v. Judge of Kenosha Circuit Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)