Lichfelt v. Kopp

38 Mich. 312, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 69
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 30, 1878·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Suit upon a recognizance of special bail, by which the defendants undertook for the appearance of one Bettinger. The plaintiff obtained judgment against Bettinger, took out a fi. fa. and afterwards a ca. sa. and the only question arising upon the record is made upon the sufficiency of the sheriff’s return to the last named writ.

. The statute (Comp. L., § 5763) provides that no action shall be brought against the special bail until a ca. sa. shall be issued etc., and returned by the sheriff “that the defendant could not be found within his county.” The return made by the sheriff is that “ I hereby certify and return that after diligent search and inquiry I am unable to find the within named defendant Jacob Bettinger within my bailiwick, and cannot have his body as I am within commanded.” This is fully equivalent to the statutory requirement, and is sufficient.

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

Lichfelt v. Kopp, 38 Mich. 312, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 69 (Mich. 1878).

38 Mich. 312 (Lichfelt v. Kopp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Koch v. Coots
4 N.W. 534 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1880)