Robinson v. Sample
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Citation | 242 Mich. 548,219 N.W. 661 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. SAMPLE, Circuit Judge (two cases). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petitions by Fay Robinson and Claud A. Robinson for mandamus to be directed to George W. Sample, Circuit Judge. Writ denied in each case.
Argued before the Entire Court. Wm. Henry Gallagher and Hugh Shepherd, both of Detroit (Edward J. Fallon, of Detroit, of counsel), for relators.
Cavanaugh & Burke, of Ann Arbor (Walter J. Maxey, of Ann Arbor, of counsel), for respondent.
These cases arise out of the same circumstances and each presents the same question for determination. The plaintiffs are husband and wife; and the suit by Mrs. Fay Robinson was originally commenced November 25, 1922, against Scott C. Runnells and the regents of the University of Michigan. An order dismissing the case as to the regents of the University was affirmed by this court July 24, 1924. See Robinson v. Circuit Judge, 228 Mich. 225, 199 N. W. 618. The defendant Runnells filed a plea September 12, 1924, and the case was praeciped on that date as ready for trial. In October, 1925, the clerk of the court informed plaintiff's attorney that the clerk though the attorney would be notified by the court when this case was placed on the call, but no such notice was given. After the case had been regularly on the calendar for seven terms of court between October 6, 1924, and March 1, 1926, it was dismissed on the latter date under the statute (section 12574, C. E. 1915) as one in which no progress had been made for more than a year. Between eight and nine months after this dismissal, the plaintiff moved to have the cases reinstated. This motion was denied, and the circuit judge also denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to vacate the order denying plaintiff's motion for reinstatement. The plaintiff now seeks by mandamus to compel the lower court to reinstate the case.
It is urged in plaintiff's behalf that, unless the relief sought is granted, she will be deprived of a trial of her case on its merits, because she is now barred by the statute of limitations from beginning her suit anew. But it can hardly be said that courts should totally disregard a defendant's right to assert the defense afforded by the statute of limitations, since it is only fair to presume that the lapse of time incident to plaintiff's delay may have rendered it all the more important, and even necessary, that the defendant should have the protection of the statute. The opinion of the circuit judge filed in this case is in accordance with our former decisions, as is indicated by the following quotation therefrom:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurt v. Cambridge
...In the latter situation, the question of reinstatement is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge (1928), 242 Mich. 548, 219 N.W. 661; Hoad v. Macomb Circuit Judge (1941), 298 Mich. 462, 299 N.W. 146; Reynolds v. Dobbertin (1962), 366 Mich. 162......
-
Globe Indem. Co. v. Richer
...Oakland Circuit Judge, 206 Mich. 680, 173 N. E. 340;Barnes v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 220 Mich. 120, 189 N. W. 896;Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 242 Mich. 548, 219 N. W. 661. Treating an appeal as an application for a writ of mandamus, it is claimed there was no compliance by defendant ......
-
Hoad v. Spier
...barred by the Statute of Limitations. We have affirmed such orders notwithstanding subsequent action was barred. Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 242 Mich. 548, 219 N.W. 661. Nor can we hold that the statute (Comp.Laws 1929, § 14253 [Stat.Ann., § 27.982]) which provides that ‘All causes......
-
Heaney v. Verson Allsteel Press Co., Inc.
...'the court upon its own initiative to clean up the dead wood which accumulates in (the) circuit courts', Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 242 Mich. 548, 550, 219 N.W. 661 (1928). Therefore, when a plaintiff is in fact prosecuting his or her claim with due diligence, the policy of the lo......