Spencer v. Fish ex rel. Smith
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Oakland. Action on recognizance. Defendant Spencer brings error. The county clerk’s official certificate of the acknowledgment of a recognizance of bail before him is entitled to belief rather than the unsupported oath of the party who purported to acknowledge it, Graham v. Anderson 42 111. 514; Lickmon v. Ha/rding 65 El. 505; Canal & Dock 'Co. v. Bussell 68 El. 426; McPherson v. Sanborn 88 111. 150; Hartley v. Frosh 6 Tex. 208; Jamison v. Jamison 3 Whart. 457;…
Read the full summary
Error to Oakland. Action on recognizance. Defendant Spencer brings error. The county clerk’s official certificate of the acknowledgment of a recognizance of bail before him is entitled to belief rather than the unsupported oath of the party who purported to acknowledge it, Graham v. Anderson 42 111. 514; Lickmon v. Ha/rding 65 El. 505; Canal & Dock 'Co. v. Bussell 68 El. 426; McPherson v. Sanborn 88 111. 150; Hartley v. Frosh 6 Tex. 208; Jamison v. Jamison 3 Whart. 457; Bidgely v. Howard 3 Har. & McH. 321. Motion to dismiss writ.
1Per curiam
The writ of error in this case should have been sued out in the name of both the defendants below; and a severance effected afterwards under the rules.*228But as the writ actually issued identifies the judgment, it would be amendable, and as the defendant who was not joined has now filed his election not to unite in prosecuting the writ, the substantial purpose of the proceedings under the rules has been accomplished, and instead of dismissing the writ, we think it competent, and proper that an order be entered that Spencer be at liberty to proceed in the case separately. It will be ordered…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bowden v. WilsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Harper v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Washington v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1910