Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Herbert v. McKinley

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1922No. Docket No. 108PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, C. J.

(after stating the facts). We have examined this record and find no reversible error. We shall not, however, take up and discuss each of *114the assignments of error as we are clearly of the opinion that an action of replevin can not be maintained in the name of the people of the State of Michigan for the use of the party bringing the action, and that the trial judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of the case. The mandate of the legislature is (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12353):

“Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” *' * *

Plaintiff…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peacock v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
  2. People ex rel. Lapeer County Bank v. O'ConnellMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Johnson v. County of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Gillen v. Wakefield State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Waters Ex Rel. Commercial Casualty Insurance v. SchultzMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Alexander v. CreelDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1944
  4. Cox v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Woodley v. LancasterMichigan Supreme Court · 1943

3 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