
    DUFLO v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
    Drains Traversing Two Counties — Review of Proceedings— Certiorari — Parties.
    A writ of certiorari to review the joint proceedings of the drain commissioners of two counties, whereby they undertook, under 3 How. Stat. § 1740p7, to lay out and establish a drain traversing portions of both counties, was properly dismissed, where it named as a party only the commissioner of the county in which the proceedings were sought to be reviewed.
    
      Mandamus by John B. Duflo to compel Willard M. Lillibridge, circuit judge of Wayne county, to set aside an order dismissing a writ of certiorari allowed to relator for the review of certain drain proceedings.
    Submitted June 22, 1897.
    Writ denied September 14, 1897.
    
      Edwin Henderson and Horace H. Backham, for relator.
    
      Byron B. Erskine and Durfee & Altor, for respondent.
   Hooker, J.

The relator, an owner of land in the county of Wayne, sought to remove by certiorari, to the circuit court for the county of Wayne, certain proceedings of the drain commissioners of the counties of Wayne and Macomb, whereby- they undertook to lay out and establish a drain traversing portions of both of said counties. The notice was not served seasonably upon the commissioner for the county of Macomb, nor was he a party named in the writ, which issued only to the drain commissioner of the county of Wayne. Section 1740p7, 3 How. Stat., requires joint action by the commissioners in such cases. They practically act as a board, and both should have been made parties to the writ, not only because of their joint official action and control of such proceedings, but because of the fact that each of said counties is interested in the proceeding, and entitled to a hearing through its drain commissioner. Wilson v. Gifford, 41 Mich. 417; 4 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 183. Unlike the case of Wilson v. Gifford, supra, the writ failed to mention the commissioner of Macomb county officially or by name. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the proceeding was properly dismissed, and the writ of mandamus is therefore denied.

The other Justices concurred.  