Hitchcock v. Hahn
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Clair. (Stevens, J.) Attachment. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. All of the proceedings in the case on the part of the sheriff were taken on January 18, the date the writ was issued. The appraisal of the attached property was made that day, as appears by his return, and on the same day he made his return that he was unable to find the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Clair. (Stevens, J.) Attachment. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion. All of the proceedings in the case on the part of the sheriff were taken on January 18, the date the writ was issued. The appraisal of the attached property was made that day, as appears by his return, and on the same day he made his return that he was unable to find the defendants. Such a return, made before the return day, conferred no jurisdiction on the court: Withington v. Southworth, 26 Mich. 381; Nicolls v. Lawrence, 30 Id. 395 ; Town v. Tabor, 34 Id. 262; Manhard v. Schott, 37…
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
Plaintiffs recovered judgment in the circuit court for the county of St. Clair in a suit commenced by attachment. The affidavit was made and writ issued January 18, 1884, and returnable February 5th of that year.
No personal service was obtained upon the defendants, but property belonging to the defendants was attached, and the proceedings thereafter to judgment were in conformity to the statute in cases where property is attached and no personal service is had.
Various irregularities are alleged in the proceedings, by reason of which it is claimed that such proceedings are rendered void for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Drew v. ClaypoolMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Horton v. MonroeMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Millard v. HaywardMichigan Supreme Court · 1895