Legal Opinion

Burroughs v. Eastman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 1892PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Kent. (Adsit, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

The defendants, who are, respectively, superin*434tendent, captain, and lieutenant of the police force in the city of Grand Rapids, were prosecuted by a writ of capias ad respondendum, issued out of the circuit court for the county of Kent. Defendants gave bail to the sheriff, and in due time bail to the action, and before the time limited for filing their plea they interposed a special motion to quash the writ, because the defendants, in the commission of the alleged grievances, were acting as city officers of the city of Grand Rapids, and, under the act creating the superior court of that city,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Attorney General ex rel. Hart v. CainMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Millaley v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Mason v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  3. Brown v. UhrCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
  4. McNichols v. People ex rel. CookSupreme Court of Colorado · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API