Lickly v. Bishopp
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Hillsdale; Chester, J. Certiorari by Henry H. Liekly and others to review the action of S. Chase Bishopp, special drain commissioner, in establishing a drain. There was an order dismissing the writ, and plaintiffs bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
Henry H. Liekly and Henry E. Tuttle are the only names signed to the affidavit for the writ of certiorari. They profess to represent a large number of interested persons, some of them named in the affidavit, who are not, except by recital, brought upon the record. No legal significance appears to be claimed for the allegation and none is perceived. The return denies that the plaintiffs are other than those above named. The record contains what is called a bill of exceptions of some 30 pages, the matter therein consisting of argument and colloquy occurring at the hearing, and errors are…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Berry v. LoweMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Gantz v. TolesMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Patterson v. MeadMichigan Supreme Court · 1907
- Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Anderson v. BaughmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Toledo, Saginaw & Muskegon Railway Co. v. ShaferMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Scott v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- County of Orange v. Storm King Stone Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Fowler v. AndersonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970