Legal Opinion

Brooke v. Brooke

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1935No. Docket No. 27, Calendar No. 38,086PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBushnell, J.

The sole question presented by this appeal is the construction of that portion of 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14098, which reads:

“In suits or proceedings against municipal and public corporations, and certain unincorporated boards, service of process may be made as follows :■ # *< *
“ (3) Against cities, upon the mayor, city clerk or the city attorney.”

Is the word “may” permissive or mandatoryÍ

Plaintiff,' a judgment creditor of a' city employee, after serving' successive writs of garnishment on the city iipon which disclosures were made, finally served “Nelly Mohan, garnishment clerk,” said to be an…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Smith v. School District No. 6Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  2. City of Menominee v. Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Detroit Independent Oil Co. v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Boyle v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Howard v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Katherine Amen v. City of Dearborn, a Municipal Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
  2. Moore v. Parole BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Thrifty Royal Oak, Inc v. City of Royal OakMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Tucker v. EatonMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Tucker v. EatonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API