Armstrong v. Fry

Circuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan

Armstrong v. Fry

1 Mich. N.P. 23

CourtCircuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan

DecidedOctober 8, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Mich. N.P. 23 (Armstrong v. Fry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Fry, 1 Mich. N.P. 23 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutherland, Judge.

Paragraph 3856, C. L. applies to such a case. The return having been made, it is conclusive evidence that the costs and fees have been paid. The “ costs of the justice” and “ such fees ” mentioned -in that section — “ the fee paid to the justice,” in § 3864, and “ the fees of the justice.” in sub. 6, § 3845, all refer to the moneys for fees and costs required to be paid by $ 3840, in order to appeal.

Motion denied, with usual motion costs.

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

Sutherland, Judge.

Paragraph 3856, C. L. applies to such a case. The return having been made, it is conclusive evidence that the costs and fees have been paid. The “ costs of the justice” and “ such fees ” mentioned -in that section — “ the fee paid to the justice,” in § 3864, and “ the fees of the justice.” in sub. 6, § 3845, all refer to the moneys for fees and costs required to be paid by $ 3840, in order to appeal.

Motion denied, with usual motion costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Mich. N.P. 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-fry-micirct10-1869.