McGill v. Beitner

Michigan Supreme Court

McGill v. Beitner

72 N.W. 613, 114 Mich. 646, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1153

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 N.W. 613 (McGill v. Beitner) 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

McGill v. Beitner, 72 N.W. 613, 114 Mich. 646, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1153 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The writ of error was sued out in this case to obtain the review of an order dismissing the plaintiff’s case for a failure to file security for costs. On the 19th of April, 1897, an order was entered by the circuit court requiring plaintiff to file security for costs within 60 days, or show cause why such security should not be filed. The next that appears of record is an undertaking to secure costs, signed, “George P. Geiger,” and filed June 28,1897. This was not in the form prescribed by section 8992, 2 How. Stat. On the 30th day of June plaintiff filed another undertaking in the form of a bond which complied with the statute. Notice of this was given to defendants’ attórneys June 30th. On the 2d of July a motion was filed to dismiss the case on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the order. This motion was granted.

"We think the failure to comply with the order at the precise time fixed ought not to be visited with the penalty of dismissal. Parks v. Goodwin, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 56.

Order reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

The writ of error was sued out in this case to obtain the review of an order dismissing the plaintiff’s case for a failure to file security for costs. On the 19th of April, 1897, an order was entered by the circuit court requiring plaintiff to file security for costs within 60 days, or show cause why such security should not be filed. The next that appears of record is an undertaking to secure costs, signed, “George P. Geiger,” and filed June 28,1897. This was not in the form prescribed by section 8992, 2 How. Stat. On the 30th day of June plaintiff filed another undertaking in the form of a bond which complied with the statute. Notice of this was given to defendants’ attórneys June 30th. On the 2d of July a motion was filed to dismiss the case on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the order. This motion was granted.

"We think the failure to comply with the order at the precise time fixed ought not to be visited with the penalty of dismissal. Parks v. Goodwin, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 56.

Order reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.W. 613, 114 Mich. 646, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgill-v-beitner-mich-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack