a banking firm (naming them) in Chicago, Illinois, to send a letter of advice to the bank on which the bill was drawn, requesting its payment; that, at the time defendant requested the Chicago bankers to send a letter of advice requesting payment of the bill of exchange sold relator, he sent them a worthless check, which was immediately returned to them protested, and that they thereupon notified the bank upon which the bill of exchange was drawn not to pay it. Upon motion, respondent quashed the writ, and relator applied for mandamus to compel him to vacate such order. W. F. Riggs, for relator. Chadbourne & Rees, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The writ of mandamus is denied, on the ground that the allegations of fraud in the affidavit are hearsay. CHARLES D. CRITTENDEN, GUARDIAN, ETC., v. CORNELIUS J. REILLY, PRESIDING AS CIRCUIT JUDGE of MACOMB COUNTY. Probate courts-Appeal-Dismissal—Mandamus-Laches. Mandamus will not lie to vacate an order dismissing an appeal from probate court after the time limited by 3 How. Stat. § 8686, for bringing certiorari has expired. 'How. Stat. § 8693, provides that writs of certiorari shall be brought within the time limited for bringing a writ of error upon a judgment; and 3 How. Stat. § 8686, limits the time for bringing a writ of error to one year, subject to an extension of not exceeding six months by the Supreme Court, or by one of the Supreme Court Justices at chambers, when the party making the application has been prevented from taking out the writ by circumstances not under his control. Mandamus. Argued December 12, 1893. Denied December 13, 1893. Relator, as guardian of minor heirs, appealed from an order of the probate court of Macomb county admitting a will to probate. The respondent, as presiding judge, made an order dismissing the appeal, and, after the expiration of the year limited by 3 How. Stat. § 8686, for bringing certiorari, the relator applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to vacate the order of dismissal. Black & Dodge, for relator. F. H. Canfield, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The relator had a remedy by certiorari, which has been lost by lapse of time; and a writ of mandamus will not be granted to extend the time beyond that limited for bringing certiorari. GABRIEL CHIERA ET AL. V. HENRY N. BREVOORT, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF WAYNE COUNTY. Injunction-Mandamus. Where, upon an application for mandamus to dissolve an injunction, it appears that the case was within the jurisdiction and power of the circuit judge, it will not be reviewed. Mandamus. Argued December 12, 1893. Denied December 13, 1893. Relators, as owners of the majority of the capital stock of a Michigan corporation, applied for a mandamus to compel the respondent to dissolve an injunction restraining them from holding a meeting for the election of a board of directors under the claim that the former election was invalid. James H. Pound, for relators. Alfred Lucking, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The writ is denied. The case was within the jurisdiction and power of the circuit judge, and this Court will not review it. INDEX TO NOTES. EVIDENCE. Business standing of a defendant in a slander suit. Randall EXEMPTIONS. 1. Right of husband to dispose of exempt property. Miller v. 2. Right to bring suit for exempt property, and form of declara- HIGHWAYS. Duty of townships to erect railings or barriers along a high- LABOR AND MATERIAL CLAIMS. Duty to require bond of public contractor to pay. Weinberg LOCAL OPTION LAW. See Moran v. Darby, 186. MANDAMUS. When application must be made to circuit court, under Rule MORTGAGE. Attorney's fee on statutory foreclosure. NEGLIGENCE. Wilkinson v. Estate 1. Looking and listening before crossing railroad track. Gard- |