Miller v. Sutro Bros. Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.
Plaintiff herein instituted suit in the common pleas court of Detroit against the defend ant, a limited partnership. Defendant entered a special appearance and moved to quash the summons on the ground that valid service had not been obtained. This latter claim was based upon the fact that service was obtained upon the resident manager of defendant’s Detroit office and not upon any of the individual members of the firm, all of whom resided in the State of New York. The motion to quash was denied. Defendant took no further part in the proceedings in the common pleas court, and plaintiff had…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Heap v. HeapMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
- Lapham v. TarabusiMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Wright v. RussellMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Courtis v. GarrisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Osborne v. OsborneMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Domestic Finance Co. v. PurserMichigan Court of Appeals · 1966
- Hoffman v. GouldMichigan Supreme Court · 1935