Legal Opinion

Chilson v. Jennison

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1886PublishedCited by 4 opinions

"Mandamus. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Per curiam

Chilson was defendant in a replevin suit commenced before a justice. He pleaded to the jurisdiction that the value of the property claimed was $200, and that, therefore, the justice had no jurisdiction. Issue in fact seems to have been taken on this plea, and testimony heard; but afterwards the justice overruled it, and Chilson refused to plead further. Plaintiff finally recovered judgment Upon special appeal the respondent refused to order a trial upon the plea to the jurisdiction, and mandamus is asked to require -him to do so.

In Henderson v. Desborough, 28 Mich. 170, it was held that when…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Henderson v. DesboroughMichigan Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bates & Co. v. StanleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Burt v. AddisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Kaufman v. KelleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
  4. Ware v. Shoemaker-Bale Auto Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API