Legal Opinion

Drew v. Claypool

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1886PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Berrien. (Smith, J7) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The’ facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

In this case judgment by default was entered under a writ of attachment returnable April'T, 1885, and returned “Not found,” April4, 1885.

*234It is assigned as error that this return was premature, and not good in support of the judgment. This has been so often decided that no discussion is needed.1

The judgment must be reversed, with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

A justice of the peace has power, under the statute of amendments, to permit an officer to amend his return to a writ of attachment by showing when, it was in fact made and the writ and return filed with the justice.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Norberg v. HeinemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Hitchcock v. HahnMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Deck v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Sweet v. GibsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Kurtz v. GartnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Batchoff v. Butte Pacific Copper Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API