Lichfelt v. Kopp

Michigan Supreme Court

Lichfelt v. Kopp

38 Mich. 312, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 69

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 Mich. 312 (Lichfelt v. Kopp) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Mich. 312, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lichfelt-v-kopp-mich-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack