Church v. Edson

Michigan Supreme Court

Church v. Edson

39 Mich. 113, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 224

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 Mich. 113 (Church v. Edson) 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

Church v. Edson, 39 Mich. 113, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 224 (Mich. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooley, J.

Action was brought-in the Superior Court of Detroit against the plaintiffs in error as makers' and Peter Crawford as endorser of two promissory notes. Service was made on Crawford in Detroit, and no question is made of the validity and correctness of the judgment that was taken by default against him. A like judgment against the plaintiffs in error is contested for want of jurisdiction; service having been made upon them in the counties of Bay and Calhoun respectively.

Had the demand in suit been a joint demand, service upon Crawford would have authorized a joint judgment in form against all the defendants. Gunzberg v. Miller, ante p. 80. But the undertaking of the maker and that of the endorser of a note are separate undertakings; and though all the parties may under the statute (Comp. L., § 5776) be joined in one action, this does not make their several contracts one. It does not, therefore, authorize the court to enter up a joint judgment against all on a service made upon a part only.

In this case no service authorized by law has been made on any of the makers. A judgment against them was therefore unwarranted, and it must be reversed, with costs of this court.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Cooley, J.

Action was brought-in the Superior Court of Detroit against the plaintiffs in error as makers' and Peter Crawford as endorser of two promissory notes. Service was made on Crawford in Detroit, and no question is made of the validity and correctness of the judgment that was taken by default against him. A like judgment against the plaintiffs in error is contested for want of jurisdiction; service having been made upon them in the counties of Bay and Calhoun respectively.

Had the demand in suit been a joint demand, service upon Crawford would have authorized a joint judgment in form against all the defendants. Gunzberg v. Miller, ante p. 80. But the undertaking of the maker and that of the endorser of a note are separate undertakings; and though all the parties may under the statute (Comp. L., § 5776) be joined in one action, this does not make their several contracts one. It does not, therefore, authorize the court to enter up a joint judgment against all on a service made upon a part only.

In this case no service authorized by law has been made on any of the makers. A judgment against them was therefore unwarranted, and it must be reversed, with costs of this court.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Mich. 113, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/church-v-edson-mich-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack