Fessenden v. Hill
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to the District Court for the Upper Peninsula. Hill commenced suit against Fessenden in the District Court of the Upper Peninsula, for the county of Houghton, by attachment. The affidavit for attachment, based upon the non-residence of a defendant, was made February 23d, 1857, and the writ issued thereon bore date two days thereafter.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court for the Upper Peninsula. Hill commenced suit against Fessenden in the District Court of the Upper Peninsula, for the county of Houghton, by attachment. The affidavit for attachment, based upon the non-residence of a defendant, was made February 23d, 1857, and the writ issued thereon bore date two days thereafter. Property was attached by virtue of this writ, but Fessenden was not personally served, and did not appear in the cause-Judgment having passed against him by default, he brought the case to this Court by writ of error, alleging several grounds of error.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chiee Justice:
The affidavit in this case having been made two days before the writ issued, the judgment can not be supported, — Wilson v. Arnold, 5 Mich. 98. This point being decisive of the case, we do not think it proper for us to hear an argument upon the other questions raised, and give opinions upon them.
Judgment reversed.
Manning J. did not sit in this case.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shevin v. Venderbush CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1937