Hollister v. Giddings
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oakland Circuit. This was ail action of replevin brought in tbe court below, by Daniel W. Hollister against Josbua R. G-iddings, for a horse. On the trial, it appeared that Hollister was tbe owner of the liorse, and that Giddings took it by virtue of an execution issued by one Chatfield, a justice of tbe peace, upon a judgment in favor of one Mary E. Clarke, against William Retan, wbicli Hollister bad stayed.
Read the full summary
Error to Oakland Circuit. This was ail action of replevin brought in tbe court below, by Daniel W. Hollister against Josbua R. G-iddings, for a horse. On the trial, it appeared that Hollister was tbe owner of the liorse, and that Giddings took it by virtue of an execution issued by one Chatfield, a justice of tbe peace, upon a judgment in favor of one Mary E. Clarke, against William Retan, wbicli Hollister bad stayed. The questions raised relate to tbe validity of this judgment and execution. The defendant recovered judgment and the plaintiff brings the cause to this court on writ of error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
The questions in this case relate to tbe validity of a *502justice’s judgment and. the execution issued thereon. The judgment was rendered on confession in writing, signed by the party in due form; but it is objected that the statute authorizing such a confession by its terms, applies only to cases where the defendant voluntarily appears, without process; and in this case the docket does not show affirmatively that no process was issued. This objection has no plausibility. A confession that is sufficient without process is certainly good with it.
It is also objected that the judgment is void…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wright v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Cox v. CrippenMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by2 opinions
- Parks v. NortonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Stanton v. McMullenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1880