Goodrich v. Burdick
| Decision Date | 22 October 1872 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Reuben Goodrich v. Hiram C. Burdick |
Submitted on Briefs October 16, 1872.
Error to Grand Traverse circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Ramsdell & Benedict, for plaintiff in error.
Fowler & McAlvay, for defendant in error.
Though it might not have been erroneous for the court to have allowed Stewart, the clerk of the defendant, to sit as a juror, no other cause being shown against him, there was no error in rejecting him for this cause, and we think his rejection judicious and proper.
As to the rejection of the justice's docket, verified by his own oath, in proof of the judgment in an attachment suit had before him, which was offered and rejected, we think the record of a justice's judgment is not, in ordinary cases like that of the circuit court, either at law or in equity, where, by express provision of the statute, the papers filed in the cause, constitute the record.
The record of the court of a justice of the peace, consists of the entries upon his docket, every item of which is specially enumerated in the statutes: Com. L. 1857, § 3890. He is required to enter upon his docket, "1st, The title of the cause; 2d, The time when the first and any subsequent process was issued against the defendant, and the particular process issued." It then enumerates thirteen other items or specified facts, which he shall also enter. In none of these is any affidavit required to be entered, or alluded to, whether such affidavit be the basis of process issued or not. By section 3891, the justice may, if he chooses, though he is not bound to, state any other matters than those enumerated in and required by the previous section.
By section 3893, a transcript, duly certified, is made evidence not only of the judgment, but of the proceedings previous to the judgment, "to prove the facts stated in the transcript," but of nothing further; and though the statute does not expressly so declare, we see no reason to doubt that the docket itself, verified by the justice, would equally be evidence "of the facts stated in it." The facts which the statute requires to be thus stated, would, in all ordinary cases, be sufficient to show the jurisdiction of the justice. But a proceeding by attachment, which seizes a defendant's property before judgment or trial, is exceptional, and no jurisdiction exists to issue an attachment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smalley v. Lighthall
...a valid judgment, in the absence of any proof of the affidavit on which the writ issued and which is essential to jurisdiction: Goodrich v. Burdick 26 Mich. 39; where the entry of a judgment shows a joint suit with only one defendant served, and a judgment against "defendant," it is enough ......
-
Pearce v. Quincy Mining Co.
...of the defendant. We are cited to no case in this court which decides the question. Counsel for defendant rely on Goodrich v. Burdick, 26 Mich. 39, where the defendant's clerk was excused by the court. It was there said, the court speaking through Christiancy, C. J.: ‘Though it might not ha......
-
Sherman v. Palmer
...Kleek v. Eggleston 7 Mich. 511. A justice's record consists of the entries which the statute requires to be made on his docket, Goodrich v. Burdick 26 Mich. 39; Facey Fuller 13 Mich. 527; Allen v. Carpenter 15 Mich. 33, and these do not include the return, How. S at. § 7355-6. Where the sta......
-
Wedel v. Green
...property is taken from him, and the record of proceedings of due process of law, when valid, must always show these. Goodrich v. Burdick, 26 Mich. 39; Udell v. Kahn, 31 Mich. 195; Townsend v. Tudor, 41 Mich. 263, 1 N. W. Rep. 1050; Mudge v. Yaples, 58 Mich. 310,25 N. W. Rep. 297; Post v. Ha......