Legal Opinion

Meigs v. Weller

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1892PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Garnishment proceeding. Garnishee defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, C. J.

While plaintiffs may have been guilty of laches in not bringing this case to trial as required by the statute,,1 such laches, if any, was waived by the defendant.

Judgment was rendered against the principal defendant March 18, 1890. The next term of court was in May. If not brought on at that term by plaintiffs, the defendant might have moved to dismiss the case, but, instead of doing so, it appears from the record that when the motion was made on the 2d day of October, 1890, to. dismiss the case for want of diligence in its prosecution, the counsel for plaintiffs stated in open court that, if…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Daggett, Bassett & Hills Co. v. McClintockMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Atwood v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  2. Berger Furnace Co. v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Webber v. HayesMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Roof v. BlakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Meehan v. ParkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1923

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

Powered by the Exa API