
    James M. Dunlap v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & Grand Trunk Railway Company.
    
      Condemnation of lands — Commissioners of appraised — Cm'tiora/ri.
    
      Jurisdiction, to appoint commissioners of appraisal in proceedings to condemn land cannot be conferred by notice served only on a person wlio is in no way connected with the owner of tlie premises and bas only gone on them to receive service by collusion with, those interested in the condemnation.
    
      Certiorarri will lie to review proceedings to condemn land when void for want of jurisdiction; though it should not be favored where any other remedy is adequate.
    
      A writ of certiorari in oases involving interference with important works ought not to be allowed unless applied for as soon as practicable; and if granted after the expiration of the twenty days allowed for an appeal in proceedings to condemn land, will not be sustained unless the delay in suing it out is satisfactorily explained.
    Certiorari to Oakland Circuit Court.
    Submitted January 21.
    Decided June 15.
    Proceedings under Act 198 of 1873, art. 2, secs. 18-26, to condemn lands for railway purposes. Claimant brings certiorari.
    Proceedings quashed.
    
      E. J. Bissell and F. A. Baker for plaintiff in certiorari.
    Substituted service in condemnation proceedings cannot be authorized where it is not necessary: Cooley Const. Lim. § 404; Settlemier v. Sulliman 97 U. S. 444; Knox v. Miller 18 Wis. 397; In re Empire City Bank 18 N. Y. 216; certiorari is proper in this case: Specht v. Detroit 20 Mich. 168.
    
      H. C. Waldron, A. C. Baldwin and C. & W. N. Draper for defendant in certiorari.
    Certiorari lies only to review erroneous proceedings of inferior tribunals where there is no other available remedy: Edgar v. Greer A Ia. 211; Farrell v. Taylor 12 Mich. 113; if defective service deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction, an appeal would carry up the whole record: 2 Wait’s Actions 138; People v. Board of Health 33 Barb. 346; Meeks v. Windon 10 W. Va. 180; one who can obtain redress by appeal cannot take his remedy by certiorari: 12 Am. Dec. 531, n; Clary v. Hoagland 13 Cal. 174; Baker v. Halstead Busb. (N. C. L.) 41; Witkowski v. Skalowski 46 Ga. 41; Peacock v. Leonard 8 Nev. 84,157, 247; In re Mount Morris Square 2 Hill 27; Storm v. Odell 2 Wend. 287; People v. Betts 55 N. Y. 600; nor can he where his statutory remedy is gone before the Supreme Court is applied to: Withington v. Southworth 26 Mich. 381; The King v. Eaton 2 D. & E. 89; Zink v. Langton Doug. 749; service is good where a copy of the notice is left at the usual place of residence of the party to be served: Walke v. Bank of Circleville 15 Ohio 298 ; Grant v. Dal 
      
      liber 11 Conn. 234; especially if notice is served on his wife: Augusta v. Windsor 19 Me. 317; Scott v. Coleman 5 Litt. 349; Ames v. Winsor 19 Pick. 247; Wright v. Oakley 5 Met. 400; Morrison v. Underwood 5 Cush. 52; Tilden v. Johnson 6 Cush. 354; Orcutt v. Ranney 10 Cush. 183; Bujac v. Morgan 3 Yeates (Penn.) 258; Heatherly v. Hadley 2 Oreg. 269; Frean v. Cruikshanks 3 McCord 84; Brownfield v. Dyer 7 Bush 505; Hughes v. Osborn 42 Ind. 450; the service was sufficient in this ease: Wheeler v. Wilkins 19 Mich. 80; Mechanics Bank v. Snowdon 2 Paige 298; Matteson v. Smith 37 Wis. 333; Northrup v. Shephard 23 Wis. 513.
   Campbell, J.

In this case, which is a proceeding to condemn lands for a railroad, the original notice was served on a person who was in no way connected with Dunlap, and who had gone on to his premises for the purpose of having service made on him so as to bind Dunlap. The service was clearly illegal and known to be so by the representatives of the railroad who procured his action, and there was no jurisdiction to appoint commissioners of appraisal. The proceedings should not have been confirmed.

It is objected that certiorari is an improper remedy, and that resort should have been had to an appeal. While it is true that certiorari should not be favored where any other remedy is adequate, yet it will undoubtedly lie for want of jurisdiction. But in cases involving the interference with important works, the writ ought not to be allowed unless .applied for as soon as practicable. The time for appeal is limited to twenty days, and we shall not feel disposed to sustain a certiorari granted after a longer time, unless under circumstances clearly explaining and accounting for the delay. In the present case it was granted at once and no> want of diligence existed.

The proceedings must be quashed as to plaintiff in certiorari with costs of this court and of the proceedings below..

The other Justices concurred.  