People ex rel. Hosie v. Judge of the Wayne Circuit Court

Citation22 Mich. 493
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Decision Date18 April 1871
PartiesThe People ex rel. Robert Hosie v. The Judge of the Wayne Circuit Court

Heard April 18, 1871 [Syllabus Material]

Motion for mandamus.

The petition sets forth that on December 3d, 1870, relator commenced an action of assumpsit by declaration in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, against Elisha Harrington, John S. Gray and Joseph Toynton; that the declaration contained the common counts in assumpsit, with a copy of a note attached, and the usual notice that on the trial the plaintiff will give such note in evidence (setting forth the notice and copy of the note which is for $ 185 dated December 18, 1868, payable six months after date, to the order of Messrs. Gray & Toynton, signed by E Harrington, and indorsed by Gray & Toynton), afterwards a true copy of said declaration, with said notice and copy of note attached, and with a notice to appear and plead in due form indorsed thereon, was personally served on defendants Gray & Toynton, in Wayne county, by the sheriff thereof on the 3d day of December, 1870, as appears by the return of said sheriff, duly filed in said cause on March 21, 1871; that on December 21, 1870, relator caused the sheriff of Alpena county to serve defendant Harrington, in said Alpena county, where he then resided, with a copy of said declaration and notices and note, as appears by the return of said sheriff, filed in said cause on March 21, 1871; that on January 20, 1871, Harrington, by his counsel, moved to set aside said service upon him for the following reasons, viz.: 1. That said defendant is not a joint defendant with the other defendants. 2. That the said declaration was served on said defendant in the county of Alpena, and not within the county of Wayne. 3. That said defendant was not lawfully served with said declaration, and the service thereof was and is insufficient, and not in compliance with the statutes of this state; that said motion was based upon the returns of service as above set forth, and upon an affidavit stating that: 1. The defendant then resided in said Alpena county, and had for three years then last past. 2. The plaintiff claimed to recover, as the only cause of action in said cause, on the note, a copy of which is given. 3. The said Harrington was the sole maker of such note, and the defendants Gray and Toynton, were indorsers merely; that on April 3d, 1871, said court granted said motion, and ordered the service of said declaration made, as above set forth, upon said defendant Harrington to be set aside. The prayer was for a mandamus to compel said court to vacate said order

The answer admits the facts stated, and adds that on the hearing of said motion it was, for the purposes of said motion admitted and conceded, that there was no other claim and no other joint...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State ex rel. Knisely v. Holtcamp
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 22, 1915
    ...that it has no jurisdiction, declines to consider the matter, mandamus will issue to compel action.' "In People ex rel. v. Judge of Wayne Circuit Court, 22 Mich. 493, it is held: 'Where suit is commenced by against the maker and indorsers of a promissory note in the circuit court for the co......
  • State ex rel. Snow Steam Pump Works v. Homer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 28, 1913
    ...... WILLIAM B. HOMER, Judge" Supreme Court of Missouri March 28, 1913 . . \xC2"...circuit court of the city of. St. Louis acquired ...Ex parte Parker, 131 U.S. 221; People v. Bacon, 18 Mich. 247; Thompson v. United ... People ex rel. v. Judge of Wayne Circuit Court, 22 Mich. 493, it is held: "Where ......
  • State v. Holtcamp
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 22, 1915
    ...that it has no jurisdiction, declines to consider the matter, mandamus will issue to compel action.' In People ex rel. v. Judge of Wayne Circuit Court, 22 Mich. 493, it is held: `Where suit is commenced by declaration against the maker and indorsers of a promissory note in the circuit court......
  • State v. Homer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 1, 1913
    ...erroneously that it has no jurisdiction, declines to consider the matter, mandamus will lie to compel action." In People v. Judge of Wayne Circuit Court, 22 Mich. 493, it is held: "Where suit is commenced by declaration against the makers and indorsers of a promissory note in the circuit co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT