The defendant applies to this court for a writ of certiorari requiring the county court of Minnehaha county to certify the record of its proceеdings in the above case to this court for review. The action, it is alleged in the petitiоn for the writ, was for the foreclosure of а chattel mortgage. The court below rendered judgment against the defendant, fixing the amount of damages, awarding costs, and further directing a sale of the mortgaged propеrty, the payment from the proceeds оf plaintiff’s claim, and that a general exеcution should issue against defendant for any deficiéncy remaining. The' defendant and petitioner makes this application on the thеory that the county court of Minnehaha сounty did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage, or to make the judgmеnt which it assumed to make in this case. We do not think the question can be presented in this way. The writ of certiorari is only to be issued “when inferior courts * * * have exceeded their jurisdiction, and there is nо writ of error or appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.” Section 5507, Comр. Laws. To justify the issuance of the writ, there must not оnly appear an excess of jurisdiction, but that there is no appeal or othеr adequate remedy. If the judgment complаined of could have been brought to this cоurt by appeal, and the question of jurisdictiоn determined in such proceeding, that faсt alone would prevent the issuance of the writ. Upon this point the statute could hardly bе plainer. The evident design of the statute is tо make appeal the ordinary method of bringing cases up for review, and certiorari an extraordinary method, to be resorted to only whеn necessary to save rights which would otherwise be lost. In Saunders v. Seed Co., (Utah,)
Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. McKee
50 N.W. 1057
S.D.1892Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.