Erikson v. Alpena Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Erikson v. Alpena Circuit Judge

101 N.W. 63, 138 Mich. 103, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 800

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1904

DocketCalendar No. 20,466

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 N.W. 63 (Erikson v. Alpena 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

Erikson v. Alpena Circuit Judge, 101 N.W. 63, 138 Mich. 103, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 800 (Mich. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator moves that we strike from the answer all matter not shown to be within the personal knowledge of the respondent, or based on the records and files in the cause. We are cited to no case which prescribes the practice resorted to by the relator of asking us to mutilate the judge’s answer to the order to show cause. The value of the writ of mandamus consists largely of its summary character, and we are loath to ingraft upon the practice any unnecessary feature that will impair its efficiency. A better practice is to call the attention of the court, upon the hearing, to such parts of the answer and accompanying papers as are not entitled to consideration, when they can be eliminated or disregarded, care being taken to avoid a waiver through pleading subsequent to the answer.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator moves that we strike from the answer all matter not shown to be within the personal knowledge of the respondent, or based on the records and files in the cause. We are cited to no case which prescribes the practice resorted to by the relator of asking us to mutilate the judge’s answer to the order to show cause. The value of the writ of mandamus consists largely of its summary character, and we are loath to ingraft upon the practice any unnecessary feature that will impair its efficiency. A better practice is to call the attention of the court, upon the hearing, to such parts of the answer and accompanying papers as are not entitled to consideration, when they can be eliminated or disregarded, care being taken to avoid a waiver through pleading subsequent to the answer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.W. 63, 138 Mich. 103, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erikson-v-alpena-circuit-judge-mich-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack