Clairview Park Improvement Co. of Gross Pointe, Ltd. v. Wayne Circuit Judge
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus by the Clairview Park Improvement Company of Grosse Pointe, Limited, against George S. Hosmer, one of the Wayne circuit judges, to compel respondent to vacate orders denying a new trial to relator in certain ejectment proceedings in which relator was plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
This court has repeatedly held that under the provisions of section 10981, 3 Comp. Laws, the party against whom judgment shall be rendered, upon payment of costs, may have a new trial as of course in the action of ejectment. Van Den Brooks v. Correon, 48 Mich. 283 (12 N. W. 206); Keyser v. Sutherland, 59 Mich. 455-465 (26 N. W. 865). In the last-cited case, it was said that this was a right of which no court could debar the party. See, also, Dennison v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 37 Mich. 281-285.
In Rupiper v. Calloway, 105 Wis. 4 (80 N. W. 916), under a statute similar to ours, it was held that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Keyser v. SutherlandMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Roberts v. . BaumgartenNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Bray v. DohenySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Clairview Park Improvement Co. of Grosse Pointe, Ltd. v. Detroit & Lake St. Clair RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Rupiper v. CallowayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- McBride v. Chippewa Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1918