People ex rel. Coon v. Plymouth Plank Road Company
| Decision Date | 15 June 1875 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People on the relation of Myron Coon and others v. The Plymouth Plank Road Company |
Heard June 9, 1875
Information in the nature of a Quo Warranto.
Judgment of ouster entered.
A. J Smith, Attorney General, and Henry M. Cheever, for the People.
F. A Baker, for respondent.
Marston, J., did not sit in this case.
The motion for a new trial in this cause is denied. If good cause for a new trial existed, the motion should have been made at the last term, the report having been on file considerably more than a month before that term closed. But we think to good cause existed. What is relied upon is, that the attorney for respondents, upon whom they depended for the trial of the case, was unable from illness to attend to it when the trial took place, and therefore formally withdrew from the case, serving a written notice thereof upon counsel for the people, who nevertheless went on with the trial. It is claimed that this withdrawal took from the relators the right to proceed. The statute,-Comp. L., § 5630,--provides that "When any attorney or solicitor shall die, be removed or suspended, or cease to act as such, the person for who he was acting shall be notified to appoint another attorney or solicitor, at least thirty days before any proceeding shall be had against such person, in the matter wherein such attorney or solicitor was acting for him." We do not understand this to apply to as case where a practicing attorney for any reason declines to go on with a particular case while still continuing in practice. It might be made the means of serious mischief, if it could have such a construction. The plain meaning of the statute is to provide for cases in which the attorney or solicitor, by reason of death, disability, or other cause, has caused to practice in the court. His refusal to proceed in a particular case is not ceasing to "act as such" attorney or solicitor; it does not even disconnect him with the case; for that can only be accomplished by consent of the parties, or of the court, or by regular proceedings for the substitution of another.
Several objections are made to the motion on behalf of the relators for final judgment. The first is, that the judge has not certified the evidence. But this was not required by the order sending the case down for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
...Co., 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 193; People v. Washington Bank, 6 Cowan (N. Y.) 211; People v. Bank of Hudson, 6 Cowan (N. Y.) 217; Coon v. Railroad, 32 Mich. 248. (2) The remedy frequently used to oust a corporation from franchises, rights, liberties and privileges illegally exercised, that is, exer......
-
People v. Bruinsma, Docket No. 9592
...Wykoff v. Winisky (1968), 9 Mich.App. 662, 158 N.W.2d 55; In re McHugh (1908), 152 Mich. 505, 116 N.W. 459; People ex rel. Coon v. Plymouth Plank Road Co. (1875), 32 Mich. 248.8 While the procedure established by the court's local rules may vary somewhat, the Court's statement in People ex ......
-
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Klingensmith
... ... proceedings. Bacon's Abr., supra. And in People v ... Sackett, 14 Mich. 243, it was held that ... Robertson, 27 ... Mich. 116; People v. Plymouth Plank Road Co., 32 ... Mich. 248, 249.[1] ... ...
-
Cott v. Wall
... ... Bingham & Garfield Railroad Company and Utah Copper Company ... were adverse ... In Coon V. Plymouth Plank Road Co. , 32 ... Mich. 248, ... ...