
    The People on the relation of Edwin W. Worden v. The Judge of Manistee Circuit.
    
      Writ of error: Bond to stay execution: Return made: Order nunc pro tunc: Supersedeas. After return made of writ of error the circuit court has no authority, where no "bond under the statute (Comp. L. 1872, § 7122) has "been filed to stay or supersede execution, to allow a "bond to "be filed nunc pro tunc and operate as a supersedeas; the power, if any, after return to grant such relief is in the supreme court.
    
      Heard and decided January 4.
    
    Application for Mandamus.
    
    The respondent at chambers, upon the ex parte application of the attorneys of a plaintiff in error who “at the time of serving the writ” of error (Comp. L. 1871, § 7122) had neglected to file a bond to stay or supersede execution, ordered that plaintiff in error have leave to file such bond nunc pro time, and thereby have recalled a previously issued execution. The application for such order, and the order, were both made after return had been made to the supreme court of the writ of error. Application is now made by defendant in error, upon notice and appearance by respondent, for mandamus to vacate such order.
    
      S. W. Fowler, for relator.
    
      L. D. Norris, for respondent,
    cited Comp. L. 1871, § 4949, and argued that the order complained of was in its nature a writ of supersedeas, and that although the writ of error brought the record to the supreme court, yet the execution issuing, if at all, from the circuit, that court would seem to be the proper tribunal to control it; and further, tliat the provision as to the precise day of filing the supersedeas bond might wisely be held directory.
   The Court

held that if any power existed after return made to the writ of error, to allow the bond to be filed nune pro tunc and operate a3 a supersedeas, it was in the supreme court, where the judgment had been removed, and”that the circuit court had no authority to make the order complained of.

"Writ granted.  