Germain v. Harwell

Mississippi Supreme Court

Germain v. Harwell

60 So. 212, 103 Miss. 521

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Germain v. Harwell. Read the opinion of the Court — 108 Miss. 396 →

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1912·Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion must he remanded to the docket, for the reason that we are not advised by certificate or otherwise that rule No. 16 (59 South. IX), requiring three days’ notice to the opposite party, has been complied with. There is an unsigned memorandum of “copy served” at the bottom of this notice; but this is not sufficient. Counsel may advise the court that this rule has been complied with by a proper certificate, which must not only be signed, but must show what was in fact done in complying with the rule.

Remanded to docket.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion must he remanded to the docket, for the reason that we are not advised by certificate or otherwise that rule No. 16 (59 South. IX), requiring three days’ notice to the opposite party, has been complied with. There is an unsigned memorandum of “copy served” at the bottom of this notice; but this is not sufficient. Counsel may advise the court that this rule has been complied with by a proper certificate, which must not only be signed, but must show what was in fact done in complying with the rule.

Remanded to docket.

Germain v. Harwell, 60 So. 212, 103 Miss. 521 (Mich. 1912).

Pincite

60 So. 212 (Germain v. Harwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.