Eaton v. Peck
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Jackson. Circuit. A deposition of one Frank P. Davis of Putnam county, Ohio, was taken under a commission directed to “Messrs. Swan & Moore, attorneys at law, of Ottawa, county of Putnam, in the state of Ohio.”
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson. Circuit. A deposition of one Frank P. Davis of Putnam county, Ohio, was taken under a commission directed to “Messrs. Swan & Moore, attorneys at law, of Ottawa, county of Putnam, in the state of Ohio.” The order under which this commission issued, was granted on August 8th, 1871, and the notice of the application therefor was served on July 29th, 1871. The following .certificate was endorsed on the back of said commission: “ The execution of the commission appears in certain schedules hereunto annexed;” which was signed “ J. J. Moore, C. J. Swan, Commissioners.” The caption…
1Per curiam
We find no error in this record. The first objection *60taken, is disposed of by tbe case of Arnold v. Nye, 23 Mich., 286; and the second to onr comprehension, raises only a question of identity of the persons to whom the commission was issued and those who executed it, which, we think, is settled by the return.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
2Cited by2 opinions
- People ex rel. Chaddock v. BarryMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Rifenburg v. City of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1890