Holmes v. Cole

Michigan Supreme Court

Holmes v. Cole

54 N.W. 761, 95 Mich. 272, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 630

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 7, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 N.W. 761 (Holmes v. Cole) 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

Holmes v. Cole, 54 N.W. 761, 95 Mich. 272, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 630 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

. McGrath, J.

This suit was commenced in justice’s court, heard on certiorari in the circuit, where judgment for plaintiff was affirmed, and defendant brings the case here by writ of error.

The docket of the justice shows that the summons was-issued January 12, returnable January 20, and that judgment was rendered January 10.

The docket entry must control, and cannot be contradicted by the return to the writ. Parol proof is inad7 missible to vary or explain a justice’s docket so as to give him jurisdiction that does not appear on its face. Mudge v. Yaples, 58 Mich. 307; Weaver v. Lammon, 62 Id. 366; Toliver v. Brownell, 94 Id. 577.

It is unnecessary to refer to other alleged defects in the docket entries.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of both courts to defendant.

Long and Grant, JJ.,, concurred. Hooker, O. J., and Montgomery, J., did not sit.

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