Ganter v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Ganter v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 531

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 22, 1891

DocketNo. 11913

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 531 (Ganter 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

Ganter v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 531 (Mich. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel respondent to amend a judgment so as to show that said judgment was for work and labor under Act No. 94, .Laws of 1887.

[535]*535Denied April 22, 1891, with costs.

The suit was commenced November 19, 1889, for “ services as traveling 'agent, putting up machinery and labor done at the rate of $75 a month,” between October 22, 1883, and October 22, 1887. Judgment rendered September 17, 1890. Motion to amend made in March, 1891. The trial court was not asked to specify that any portion of the claim was preferred, nor was any claim made upon the trial that the same or any part thereof was a labor claim.

Respondent’s contention was, that the declaration did not claim, and the proofs did not show, it to be a labor claim; that there was nothing in the record to amend by; , that in order to get the benefit of the statute, the claim should be set forth as a labor claim in the declaration, and that the statute was not retroactive.

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

To compel respondent to amend a judgment so as to show that said judgment was for work and labor under Act No. 94, .Laws of 1887.

[535]*535Denied April 22, 1891, with costs.

The suit was commenced November 19, 1889, for “ services as traveling 'agent, putting up machinery and labor done at the rate of $75 a month,” between October 22, 1883, and October 22, 1887. Judgment rendered September 17, 1890. Motion to amend made in March, 1891. The trial court was not asked to specify that any portion of the claim was preferred, nor was any claim made upon the trial that the same or any part thereof was a labor claim.

Respondent’s contention was, that the declaration did not claim, and the proofs did not show, it to be a labor claim; that there was nothing in the record to amend by; , that in order to get the benefit of the statute, the claim should be set forth as a labor claim in the declaration, and that the statute was not retroactive.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganter-v-circuit-judge-mich-1891.