Watson v. Hinchman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit by Theodore H. Hinchman and others against Charles A. Watson, William D. Wait and Thomas G. Sutherland, co-partners. The declaration was filed Feb. 10, 1879. Watson pleaded the general issue with notice of set off, March 1st. Wait did not appear, and his default was entered and made absolute March 13th.
Read the full summary
Error to Superior Court of Detroit. Assumpsit by Theodore H. Hinchman and others against Charles A. Watson, William D. Wait and Thomas G. Sutherland, co-partners. The declaration was filed Feb. 10, 1879. Watson pleaded the general issue with notice of set off, March 1st. Wait did not appear, and his default was entered and made absolute March 13th. Watson’s' plea was withdrawn in open court May 27th, and on June 2d judgment was entered for plaintiffs, which was set aside June 30th, without notice to Watson, and on motion of plaintiffs’ attorneys, who were allowed to file an affidavit showing…
1Opinion of the CourtMarston, J.
We are of opinion that the attorneys who appeared in this cause on behalf of defendant Watson were entitled to notice of any subsequent steps taken in the cause affecting their client’s rights, even although they may have withdrawn the plea by them filed in behalf of said defendant. The affidavit as to the infancy of defendant Wait, simply recited the fact that in another court and cause defendant Wait had made an affidavit that he was an infant, for the purpose of having a guardian ad litem appointed. If such affidavit filed in this case could be considered as any evidence of Wait’s infancy,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Montgomery v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Runnels v. MoffatMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Bushey v. RathsMichigan Supreme Court · 1881