Miller v. Johnson

Michigan Supreme Court

Miller v. Johnson

167 N.W. 834, 201 Mich. 535, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 766

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1918

DocketDocket No. 13

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 167 N.W. 834 (Miller v. Johnson) 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

Miller v. Johnson, 167 N.W. 834, 201 Mich. 535, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 766 (Mich. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

May 23, 1917, judgment for $350 in favor of the plaintiff was entered in the Kent circuit court. October 5, 1917, defendants obtained a writ of error from this court without having applied therefor pursuant to Act No. 172, Pub. Acts 1917, and without taking any steps under that act, or under Rule No. 59 of this court (199 Mich.). In J. F. Hartz Co. v. Lukaszcewski, 200 Mich. 230, we held that this statute was applicable to a case in which the judgment was rendered before the act took effect, and that this court should, of its own motion, dismiss a writ of error not obtained pursuant to its provisions where the judgment did not exceed the statutory amount. The authorities were there considered and discussed. It follows that on the authority of that case' this writ of error must be dismissed. No costs will be allowed.

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

Per Curiam.

May 23, 1917, judgment for $350 in favor of the plaintiff was entered in the Kent circuit court. October 5, 1917, defendants obtained a writ of error from this court without having applied therefor pursuant to Act No. 172, Pub. Acts 1917, and without taking any steps under that act, or under Rule No. 59 of this court (199 Mich.). In J. F. Hartz Co. v. Lukaszcewski, 200 Mich. 230, we held that this statute was applicable to a case in which the judgment was rendered before the act took effect, and that this court should, of its own motion, dismiss a writ of error not obtained pursuant to its provisions where the judgment did not exceed the statutory amount. The authorities were there considered and discussed. It follows that on the authority of that case' this writ of error must be dismissed. No costs will be allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 N.W. 834, 201 Mich. 535, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-johnson-mich-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack