City of Detroit v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

City of Detroit v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 385, 4 Daily L.N. 27

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 27, 1897

DocketNo. 15865

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 385 (City of Detroit v. Circuit Judge) 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

City of Detroit v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 385, 4 Daily L.N. 27 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

To vacate that part of an order setting aside a default, entered in a suit against tbe city, which struck from defendant’s plea a notice that tbe city wo'uld show in its defense that no notice in writing was given to the bead of tbe law department, under Sec. 46 of Act No. 463, Local Acts of 1895.

Granted April 27, 1897, with costs.

Respondent insisted (1) that it was within the jurisdiction of tbe trial court, on setting aside tbe default, to impose such conditions as to tbe court might seem reasonable and just, and (2) that no proofs would be permitted to be made under tbe [387]*387notice; as the statute, as to its title, violates the constitutional requirement.

Held, that it was competent to introduce by amendment anything which might have been introduced in the original act, and that it was not within the discretion of the Circuit Court to limit the defense in the manner set forth.

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

To vacate that part of an order setting aside a default, entered in a suit against tbe city, which struck from defendant’s plea a notice that tbe city wo'uld show in its defense that no notice in writing was given to the bead of tbe law department, under Sec. 46 of Act No. 463, Local Acts of 1895.

Granted April 27, 1897, with costs.

Respondent insisted (1) that it was within the jurisdiction of tbe trial court, on setting aside tbe default, to impose such conditions as to tbe court might seem reasonable and just, and (2) that no proofs would be permitted to be made under tbe [387]*387notice; as the statute, as to its title, violates the constitutional requirement.

Held, that it was competent to introduce by amendment anything which might have been introduced in the original act, and that it was not within the discretion of the Circuit Court to limit the defense in the manner set forth.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 385, 4 Daily L.N. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-detroit-v-circuit-judge-mich-1897.