Legal Opinion

Stolte, Dangel & Foss Co. v. Cochran

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1896PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Gogebic; Haire, J. Trover by the Stolte, Dangel & Eoss Company against Livy R. Cochran and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

Plaintiff’s cause of action depends upon whether a judgment rendered in justice’s court is good. The entries on the justice’s docket, which was offered in evidence, read as follows:

*194“August 31, 1893. Summons issued, returnable at my office, in the city of Ironwood, in said county, on the fourth day of September, 1893. Returned duly served on Carl T. Engstrom and Johanna P. Johnson, defendants, at the city of Ironwood, in said county, on the first day of September, 1893, by William J. Ninness, deputy sheriff. His fees $1.50.
“Sept. 5. Case called at nine o’clock in the forenoon, the fourth day…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mudge v. YaplesMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Post v. HarperMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Talbot v. KuhnMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Wedel v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mitts v. HarveyMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Gregivere v. ChalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API