Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Mich. 291

Ortman v. Greenman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1856

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1856-01-15

This was an action of trespass, commenced by warrant before a Justice of the Peace. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff before the Justice, the defendant removed the cause by certiorari into the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw, where the judgment of tbe Justice was reversed. The plaintiff' thereupon, removed the record into this Court by writ of error.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We regret that any magistrate should, in the course of his official duty, presume to do that which the highest judicial tribunals of the land do with great caution, and only after the most mature deliberation.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Brooks v. Mangan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1940

4 state decisions

201856186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Bacon, J.

¶2The decision of the Justice was wrong; the defendant, Greenman, was a ministerial officer merely, and executed the warrants without oppression and in good faith. The warrants were regular on their face, and were issued by an officer who had justification of the subject matter. They were a shield to the constable, and he was not bound to look beyond them for his authority to serve ttíbm. (Warner vs. Shedd, 10 J. R., 138; 12 Ib., 395; Holmes vs. Lancaster; Saracool vs. Boughton, 5 Wend., 170; Coon vs. Congdon, 12 Ib., 496.)

¶3The defendants were cut off from their defence by the decision of the Justice, and for this error the judgment must be reversed.

¶4We would be glad to dismiss tbe subject at this point, but we fear that our duties would not be fully discharged did we not allude to the decision of the Justice, in declaring the Act in question to be unconstitutional!

¶5*294We regret that any magistrate should, in the course of his official duty, presume to do that which the highest judicial tribunals of the land do with great caution, and only after the most mature deliberation.

¶6Says Judge Bonvier, 1 Inst., 47, the Supreme Court of the United States will not declare the law unconstitutional unless the bench is full.

¶7The consideration of all the Judges is deemed necessary. See Mayor of New York vs. Miln (11 Peters, 130.)

¶8So,' too, in the case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 625, Chief Justice Marshall speaks with great modesty and distrust of himself when delivering the settled opinion of the Court, that a law of one of these States is in conflict with the Constitution.

¶9So, too, Judge Bronson speaks with diffidence, and assigns with great care the reasons why the Supreme Court of the State of New York declared an Act of the Legislature to be unconstitutional. (4 Hill R., 148.)

¶10And, lastly, we would call attention to the remarks of Judge Shaw, of Massachusetts, in 16 Pick., 95, Wellington vs. Petitioners, and ask a consideration of the views of that learn ed Jurist, when passing upon the validity of a statute of that State.

¶11We forbear to make further quotations upon this point, and hope the example and precepts of these eminent Judges may not be disregarded: and that, hereafter, no Justice of the Peace, however great his legal learning may be, will presume to sit in judgment and decide upon the Constitutionality of an Act of the Legislature.

¶12The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.

Present, Bacon, Copeland, Green, Martin, J. J.
/4/mich/291 · .json · Public domain