Legal Opinion

Huddleston v. Charles Amos & Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1914No. Docket No. 74PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Wayne; Murphy, J. Trespass on the case in justice’s court by Orville Huddleston against Charles Amos & Company, a corporation, for personal injuries. From an order denying defendant’s petition for leave to appeal, it brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtSteere, J.

Defendant seeks in this case to obtain a review and reversal of an order made by the Wayne county circuit court dismissing defendant’s petition for leave to appeal, after the expiration of five days, from a judgment rendered against it in a justice’s court of said county.

Defendant’s assignments of error are:

“First. The' court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s (defendant's) petition to appeal after the expiration of five days.
“Second. The court erred in making an order dismissing the plaintiff’s (defendant’s) petition, for the reason that the facts do not support such a verdict.”

The reasons…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Capwell v. BaxterMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Cosgrove v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Stock v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Draper v. TookerMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
  5. Pickell v. CoatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1907

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. Pine Shores Realty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Kowalsky v. Wayne Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Anderson v. WartenbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Detroit Lumber Co. v. Oakland Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Selby v. BradingMichigan Supreme Court · 1922

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API