Crane v. Sumner
This text of 31 Mich. 199 (Crane v. Sumner) 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.
Opinion
held that the notice of hearing was proper under rule 21, and if no new issue had been raised as pro[200]*200vided for by rule 13, the eases would be properly on the docket; but that where after the notice a new issue is raised by plea in bar to the writ, this new issue must also be noticed for hearing before it cun be brought on to be heard; that a piecemeal submission of causes is not to be favored; and that the course of practice suggested by the counsel for plaintiff in error would lead to such confusion and uncertainty as to the real state of the term docket as would be embarrassing and objectionable.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 Mich. 199, 1875 Mich. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-sumner-mich-1875.