Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 29 October 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 469 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. De Forest Hunt |
Submitted October 16, 1878
Error to Kent.
Garnishment in justice's court in which judgment was entered against the garnishee. The case being removed on writ of certiorari to the circuit court, the judgment was affirmed and the garnishee brings error.
Judgment reversed with costs of all the courts.
C. M MacLaren for plaintiff in error.
Taggart & Wolcott, for defendant in error, claimed tat certiorari was not a proper remedy and cited People v. Farwell, 4 Mich 556, and Farrell v. Taylor, 12 Mich. 113.
This was a garnishee suit against the plaintiff in error, originating in justice's court. The constable to whom the summons was issued returns that he served it on "John W. Drew, agent of the within named defendant." What Drew's agency was does not appear. In his return to the writ of certiorari the justice states that on the return day of the summons "the said parties appeared, and the said John W. Drew was sworn and proceeded to make a disclosure." The disclosure actually made, however, appears to have been made by D. D. Drew, who describes himself as "ticket agent of said road."
It is, we think, the fair import of the justice's return that when he says "the said parties appeared" he means the plaintiff and Drew. But as the mere fact that one has an agency of some undisclosed sort for another cannot authorize him to appear in suits for his principal, the jurisdiction of the justice must obviously depend upon the validity of the service of the summons. If that was insufficient, the whole proceeding falls to the ground.
The statute (Comp. L., § 6463) permits the summons on a corporation garnishee to be served on "the president, cashier, secretary, treasurer, general or special agent, superintendent, or other principal officer." John W. Drew is not represented to be an officer of the railroad company, but an agent. But what sort of an agent? Was he agent to buy wood, or employ a switchman, or to keep cattle off the track, or what was his agency? Every servant of the road is in a sense an agent: there must be something more definite than the mere designation of a man as agent before a court can say that his relation to the corporation was such as to make him its representative for the purpose of receiving service of process for it.
The terms ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gridley, Maxon & Co. v. Turner
... ... R. Co., 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1214; Lake ... Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Hunt, ... ...
-
Kronski v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
...Lawrence v. R'y Co., 42 Wis. 322. The return of the constable did not give the court jurisdiction over the defendant. Lake Shore & M. S. R'y Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich. 469. The records of the county court, or at least the justice's commission, was the only evidence to show a transfer of jurisdic......
-
St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Loughmiller
... ... the negligence and wrongful act of the railway ... company. In the view taken of the case, ... 112; Railway Co ... v. Hunt, 39 Mich. 469 ... However, ... it is ... ...
-
Adkins v. Globe Fire Ins Co
...agent, " a return not showing that the agent was a "regular" one was held bad in Tallman v. Railroad Co., 45 Fed. 156. In Railway Co. v. Hunt, 39 Mich. 469, the statute allowed service on a "general or special agent" of a corporation, and a return of service on "agent of within-named defend......