
    Ainsworth v. House, Superintendent, etc.
    Oertiorarii circuit court. The circuit court has not jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings. Oertiorari is a “special proceeding,” and not a “ civil action ” within the meaning of the statute. Following Thompson v. Heed, 29 Iowa, 117, and Sunt v. Sree, id. 1S6.
    
      Appeal from Fayette Cvrawit Cowrt.
    
    Tuesday, June 13.
    On the 11th day of July, 1870, the plaintiff filed in the circuit court of Fayette county his petition for a writ of certiorari. On the same day an order for the writ was made returnable on the 13th of July, 1870. The writ was issued and served, whereupon the defendant appeared and filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding, for the following reasons:
    1. That notice of the application was not given.
    2. That the county, superintendent is not a judicial officer.
    3. Because plaintiff has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal to the State superintendent.
    4. Because the circuit court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari.
    
    The court overruled this motion; defendant excepted, and appeals.
    
      Shvras, Van Fusee <& Henderson for the appellant.
    No appearance for the appellee.
   Miller, J.

— It was held by this court, in the case of Thompson v. Reed, 29 Iowa, 117, and Hunt v. Free, id. 156, that the circuit court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari; that the “proceeding” is “special,” and not a “ civil action,” and that the act creating tbe circuit court bad not conferred jurisdiction upon tbat court to issue this writ. According to tbe bolding in those cases, it follows tbat tbe circuit court erred in overruling tbe motion to dismiss on tbat ground. As tbe judgment must be reversed and tbe proceeding dismissed, for this reason we need not notice tbe other errors assigned.

Revérsed.  