Lathrop v. Hicks
Michigan Supreme Court
Hicks, as endorsee, brought assumpsit against Lathrop, as maker, of a promissory note; but omitted to describe the note in the declaration, as containing words of negotiability. Lathrop plead the general issue. The cause was noticed for trial at the May term, 1844, of the circuit court.
Read the full summary
Hicks, as endorsee, brought assumpsit against Lathrop, as maker, of a promissory note; but omitted to describe the note in the declaration, as containing words of negotiability. Lathrop plead the general issue. The cause was noticed for trial at the May term, 1844, of the circuit court. At that term the parties, by their respective attornies, entered into a written stipulation, to the effect that Lathrop should withdraw his plea, and, in consideration thereof, Hicks agreed that no execution should issue on any judgment which might be rendered in the cause, until the November term (then next)…
1Opinion of the CourtWing, J.
The statute allows a writ of error to be brought at any time within two years after judgment. R. S. 1838, p. 522, § 10. And the rules of this court require the plaintiff in error to cause a transcript of the record or proceedings in the court below, to be filed in the office of the clerk of this court, within forty days after such writ of error shall have been issued, if so many days intervene before the first day of the succeeding term of this court; Rule 11: and to file a special assignment of errors within ten days after the expiration of said forty days, and serve a copy on the attorney…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hanford v. McNairNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Johnson v. Jackson, ex dem. RowanNew York Supreme Court · 1828