O'Donnell v. St. Clair Circuit Judge

109 N.W. 769, 146 Mich. 442, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 924
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided November 24, 1906·No. Calendar No. 22,000½·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Cüriam.

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

O'Donnell v. St. Clair Circuit Judge, 109 N.W. 769, 146 Mich. 442, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 924 (Mich. 1906).

109 N.W. 769 (O'Donnell v. St. Clair Circuit Judge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleveland v. City of Detroit
267 N.W. 874 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)