Crozier v. Allen

Michigan Supreme Court

Crozier v. Allen

75 N.W. 300, 117 Mich. 171, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 814

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 75 N.W. 300 (Crozier v. Allen) 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

Crozier v. Allen, 75 N.W. 300, 117 Mich. 171, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 814 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

This suit is brought to recover treble damages, under section 8306, 2 How. Stat.

Defendant failed to pay rent when due. Notice to quit was served September 4th. He did not surrender possession. Plaintiffs on September 12th commenced summary proceedings to eject him. Summons was issued on the 12th, returnable the 17th. The officer, being unable to find the defendant, served the summons on Thursday, the 13th, by leaving a true copy of the same at his usual place of abode, in the manner provided by the statute, and made his return the same day. Defendant did not appear on the return day, and judgment for restitution was rendered. On the 17th [172]*172and 18th of September, defendant removed his goods from the store, but did not surrender possession till the 27th. The court rendered judgment for the defendant.

Sunday intervened between the day of service and the day for appearance. The statute requires that the summons be served “at least two days before the time of appearance mentioned therein.” 2 How. Stat. § 8298. The service was void, and gave the commissioner no jurisdiction. Chaddock v. Barry, 93 Mich. 542 (18 L. R. A. 337). The language of the statute in the two cases is identical. Both parties concede that Sunday, the 16th, is to be excluded from the computation. Substituted service could not have been made till the 14th.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

This suit is brought to recover treble damages, under section 8306, 2 How. Stat.

Defendant failed to pay rent when due. Notice to quit was served September 4th. He did not surrender possession. Plaintiffs on September 12th commenced summary proceedings to eject him. Summons was issued on the 12th, returnable the 17th. The officer, being unable to find the defendant, served the summons on Thursday, the 13th, by leaving a true copy of the same at his usual place of abode, in the manner provided by the statute, and made his return the same day. Defendant did not appear on the return day, and judgment for restitution was rendered. On the 17th [172]*172and 18th of September, defendant removed his goods from the store, but did not surrender possession till the 27th. The court rendered judgment for the defendant.

Sunday intervened between the day of service and the day for appearance. The statute requires that the summons be served “at least two days before the time of appearance mentioned therein.” 2 How. Stat. § 8298. The service was void, and gave the commissioner no jurisdiction. Chaddock v. Barry, 93 Mich. 542 (18 L. R. A. 337). The language of the statute in the two cases is identical. Both parties concede that Sunday, the 16th, is to be excluded from the computation. Substituted service could not have been made till the 14th.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.W. 300, 117 Mich. 171, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crozier-v-allen-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack