Cofrode v. Gartner
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. Relators applied for mandamus to vacate an order striking a case from - tbe trial docket. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtOhamplin, C. J.
On December 7, 1889, the relators commenced suit in the circuit court for the county of Wayne by filing a declaration against Walston H. Brown, Columbus B. Cummings, Samuel Thomas, and Wjlliam B. Howard. On December 16, 1889, defendants appeared in said cause by their attorneys, and demanded a bill of particulars, which was furnished on the same day. The •defendants also pleaded the general issue, with notice of recoupment, of which they furnished a bill of particulars. After the cause was at issue it was regularly noticed for trial by the plaintiffs5 attorneys, aud placed upon the docket for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Mason v. Ship BlaireauSupreme Court of the United States · 1804
- McCormick v. . Pennsylvania Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Conner v. St. John ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Peabody v. HamiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Great Western Railway Co. v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Gregonis v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Cray v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1973
- Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- State ex rel. Bossung v. District Court of Hennepin CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- Bradbury v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1910
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.