Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Peck
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided January 16, 1891PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Mandamus. Relator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to vacate an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended bill of particulars. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Per curiam
This is an application for a mandamus to compel the circuit judge of Ingham county to vacate an order, made in the case of William Hamilton v. James M. Turner, requiring the plaintiff—
“ To file an amended or more specific bill of particulars, therein showing how each item of plaintiff’s claim, as stated in the bill of particulars already filed, arose, with the date and amount of same, and how and by what right and when the plaintiff or his assignors became entitled, and how and when the plaintiff acquired such right; also at what time and in what way defendant became liable or indebted to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wright v. DickinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Matthews v. . HubbardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Cicotte v. County of WayneMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by6 opinions
- Walz v. Peninsular Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Johnson v. Patmon, Young & Kirk, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Olds Motor Works v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Strutz v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Sogge v. SchwartzMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.