Bills v. Keesler

Michigan Supreme Court

Bills v. Keesler

36 Mich. 69, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 85

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 3, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 Mich. 69 (Bills v. Keesler) 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

Bills v. Keesler, 36 Mich. 69, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 85 (Mich. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

. The only question on this record is, whether the court below ’erred in receiving in evidence what purported to be a [70]*70certified copy of a chattel mortgage filed in the office of the township clerk. The objection is, that the certificate is not in exact verbal conformity with the form indicated by the statute.—Comp. L., § 5931. We think, however, the substance of what is there required appears in this certificate; and that is sufficient. It may be doubted whether that statute is designed to require one general form for all cases;, there is room for supposing that the purpose was only to indicate a certificate that should be sufficient, but without precluding certificates which, but for this statute, would have been good. Another statute (Comp. L., § 4711) seems to provide for the certification of these copies, and under that, this certificate would be sufficient without doubt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

. The only question on this record is, whether the court below ’erred in receiving in evidence what purported to be a [70]*70certified copy of a chattel mortgage filed in the office of the township clerk. The objection is, that the certificate is not in exact verbal conformity with the form indicated by the statute.—Comp. L., § 5931. We think, however, the substance of what is there required appears in this certificate; and that is sufficient. It may be doubted whether that statute is designed to require one general form for all cases;, there is room for supposing that the purpose was only to indicate a certificate that should be sufficient, but without precluding certificates which, but for this statute, would have been good. Another statute (Comp. L., § 4711) seems to provide for the certification of these copies, and under that, this certificate would be sufficient without doubt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 Mich. 69, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bills-v-keesler-mich-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack