Legal Opinion

Hudson v. Roos

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

This case was tried before Hon. George Gartner, one of the circuit judges of Wayne county, on the 11th of June, 1888, without a jury. The court filed *364written findings of fact, and entered judgment in favoi of the plaintiffs for $208.28 and costs.

The first error assigned is this: The cause had regularly been assigned, according to the practice of the court, for trial as a jury case on the 8th day of June, 1888. When that day arrived the defendant’s counsel was engaged in the recorder’s court, in a criminal trial. The court refused to hold the case open until defendant’s counsel was at liberty…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Remy, Schmidt & Pleissner v. HealyMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Hudson v. RoosMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Ziehme v. SimmsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API