Hopkins v. Milaca State Bank
Opinion
The only material difference between this case and that of Peake v. Milaca State Bank, supra, page 455, 139 N. W. 813, is that the sheriff actually served the defective warrant on the plaintiff, Hopkins, took him into custody, and brought him before Justice of the Peace Dickey at Princeton, before whom the warrant was made returnable. The justice, however, refused to hear the matter and disclaimed jurisdiction. It is clear that here was a termination of the prosecution, without any opportunity for plaintiff to vindicate himself.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
139 N.W. 814 (Hopkins v. Milaca State Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.