O'Donnell v. St. Clair Circuit Judge
This text of 109 N.W. 769 (O'Donnell v. St. Clair Circuit Judge) 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.
Opinion
The application for an order to show cause is denied, for the reason that an answer need not be signed by the defendant personally when answer upon oath is waived in the bill. It is sufficient if it be signed by his solicitor. See Chancery Rule 10, subd. e. The fact that the answer is one in the nature of a cross-bill is unimportant, as a similar practice prevails as to bills of complaint. Chancery Rule 1, subd. a. Eveland v. Stephenson, 45 Mich. 396.
It is not to be inferred from this determination that mandamus would be the appropriate remedy if relator had a grievance. That question we do not decide.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
109 N.W. 769, 146 Mich. 442, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odonnell-v-st-clair-circuit-judge-mich-1906.