Adams & Ford Co. v. Cullen

Michigan Supreme Court

Adams & Ford Co. v. Cullen

124 N.W. 549, 159 Mich. 669, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 713

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1910

DocketDocket No. 68

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 N.W. 549 (Adams & Ford Co. v. Cullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams & Ford Co. v. Cullen, 124 N.W. 549, 159 Mich. 669, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 713 (Mich. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

Plaintiff, a nonresident corporation, sued defendant in assumpsit in justice’s court. Defendant appeared specially upon the return day, and moved to dismiss the cause for the neglect of plaintiff to file security for costs. This motion was overruled, whereupon plaintiff’s counsel offered to become security. The defendant objected to this, upon the sole ground that the statute prohibited such action, and the justice so held. Thereupon, without a showing on oath, plaintiff moved an adjournment of the cause for the purpose of obtaining a surety, and this motion was granted against defendant’s objection. On such adjourned day defendant did not appear,, and plaintiff took judgment. The judgment was affirmed on certiorari by the circuit court, and it is before this court by writ of error.

We are constrained to reverse the judgment upon the ground that the justice lost jurisdiction by his adjournment of the cause without a showing on oath that it was necessary. A justice’s power to adjourn a cause against objection rests upon the statute, which requires a showing on oath. See Stadler v. Moors, 9 Mich. 267; Warner v. Comstock, 55 Mich. 618 (22 N. W. 64). It has been held that an unauthorized adjournment ousts the justice of jurisdiction. Stadler v. Moors, supra; Ruberts v. Hathaway, 42 Mich. 502 (4 N. W. 307); Segar v. Lumber Co., 81 Mich. 344 (45 N. W. 982).

Judgment reversed, with costs of all courts.

Moore,, McAlvay, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hooker, J.

Plaintiff, a nonresident corporation, sued defendant in assumpsit in justice’s court. Defendant appeared specially upon the return day, and moved to dismiss the cause for the neglect of plaintiff to file security for costs. This motion was overruled, whereupon plaintiff’s counsel offered to become security. The defendant objected to this, upon the sole ground that the statute prohibited such action, and the justice so held. Thereupon, without a showing on oath, plaintiff moved an adjournment of the cause for the purpose of obtaining a surety, and this motion was granted against defendant’s objection. On such adjourned day defendant did not appear,, and plaintiff took judgment. The judgment was affirmed on certiorari by the circuit court, and it is before this court by writ of error.

We are constrained to reverse the judgment upon the ground that the justice lost jurisdiction by his adjournment of the cause without a showing on oath that it was necessary. A justice’s power to adjourn a cause against objection rests upon the statute, which requires a showing on oath. See Stadler v. Moors, 9 Mich. 267; Warner v. Comstock, 55 Mich. 618 (22 N. W. 64). It has been held that an unauthorized adjournment ousts the justice of jurisdiction. Stadler v. Moors, supra; Ruberts v. Hathaway, 42 Mich. 502 (4 N. W. 307); Segar v. Lumber Co., 81 Mich. 344 (45 N. W. 982).

Judgment reversed, with costs of all courts.

Moore,, McAlvay, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 N.W. 549, 159 Mich. 669, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-ford-co-v-cullen-mich-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack