Barth v. Marcuse

Circuit Court of the 17th Circuit of Michigan

Barth v. Marcuse

1 How. N.P. 11

CourtCircuit Court of the 17th Circuit of Michigan

DecidedNovember 21, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. N.P. 11 (Barth v. Marcuse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 17th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barth v. Marcuse, 1 How. N.P. 11 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court,

Hoyt J.,

sustained the demurrer, and held that a motion to quash was the proper remedy, and the defect in the summons, if any, could not be taken advantage of by plea in abatement.

Jones vs. Nelson, 51 Ala., 471.

Barrill’s Practice, 107.

Taggert, Stone & Earle for plaintiff. Simonds, Fletcher & Wolf for defendant.

The practice of this Court is not a matter of plea.

1 Chitty’s Pleadings, 502, 523.

Nichols vs. Nichols, 9 Wend., 263.

Paul vs. Graves, 5 Wend., 96.

No cases are found in the books where writs and the service thereof, have been set aside in any other way than by motion. This is settled practice.

Baker vs. Wales, 45 How. Prac., 137.

Carpenter vs. Spooner, 2 Sanf. 717.

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