Jacobson v. Hosmer

• Decision Date: 11 July 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 1110,76 Mich. 234
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: JACOBSON v. HOSMER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, (TWO CASES.)

42 N.W. 1110

76 Mich. 234

JACOBSON v. HOSMER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, (TWO CASES.)

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 11, 1889

Application for mandamus by David Jacobson against George S Hosmer, circuit judge of Wayne county.

CAMPBELL J.

Relator applied for a mandamus to have a service of summons set aside for breach of privilege. The motion was made before respondent, who allowed issues to be raised by counter-affidavits to an extent beyond the usual practice and returns findings upon them which we might not have found. But, as upon the view he himself took of the case the motion ought to have been granted, we shall not discuss technicalities. Relator, while at Vassar attending to business, was sued civilly, and was also arrested criminally on the 24th of January, 1889; the criminal charge being on the complaint of E. G. Stevenson, an attorney of this court. Being let to bail in the latter part of that day, he came the next morning to Detroit, reaching there in the afternoon to consult Mr. Sloman, who had long been his counsel. Mr. Sloman was not to be found on that day, being absent, but came back in the evening, and was visited for consultation on the 26th. While relator was in Mr. Sloman's office on the same business on that day he was served with a summons issued from the Wayne circuit court in a suit brought by the firm of which Mr. Stevenson is a member, for the same torts involved in the criminal complaint on which he had been arrested. That suit was in favor of nonresidents of the state, and relator resides at Greenville, Montcalm county, and all his codefendants, except one Krohn, lived in other counties than Wayne, and the cause of action arose in another county. Krohn had not been served with process when the motion to discharge relator was made on February 20th, and the original summons was never served on him. We find a variance between the printed and written return, as to when and how Krohn was subsequently served, but it does not become important. It appears that Detroit was as convenient and usual a way of travel as any other between Vassar and Greenville, but this does not impress us as very significant, inasmuch as it was a common line of travel. The right of a person to be sued at his own domicile is not a technical one, but one of importance, and should not be taken away except in strict compliance with law; and non-residents, as a rule, must sue their respondents at home. It is open to...