State ex rel. Hustisford Light, Power & Manufacturing Co. v. Grimm

Respondent first contends that the instant case is not a proper one for the exercise of the superintend*369ing power of this court, for several reasons. While denying that error was committed in ordering a compulsory reference, the gist of respondent’s contention is that the most that could be claimed is that the order for reference is erroneous, and that the superintending power should not be permitted to serve the office'of an appeal or writ of error. The order for reference'is not appealable, and it is contended that for this court to review such an order under its superintending power will be…