Parmalee v. Loomis

Michigan Supreme Court

Parmalee v. Loomis

24 Mich. 242, 1872 Mich. LEXIS 9

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 24 Mich. 242 (Parmalee v. Loomis) 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

Parmalee v. Loomis, 24 Mich. 242, 1872 Mich. LEXIS 9 (Mich. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The objection that the cause was adjourned on the written stipulation of counsel, and without the personal presence of the parties, is not well taken. This is a very different case from a verbal agreement between parties out •of court, upon which action was had by the justice after-wards. In such a case the justice assumes to act upon information furnished by himself, of what the parties have agreed to elsewhere; but in this case, when he acts, he has before him the written stipulation of the parties, which is just as effectual for whatever agreenients are there incorporated, as any oral agreement then made in his presence would be.

The objection that a replevin suit does not determine .the title, is also without force in a case in which the prop•erty is not taken on the writ, and where the plaintiff proceeds for damages. In such a case the same principles apply as in an action of trover.

The service of a summons in his own favor by a .constable, is only an irregularity.

The judgment below must be affirmed with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The objection that the cause was adjourned on the written stipulation of counsel, and without the personal presence of the parties, is not well taken. This is a very different case from a verbal agreement between parties out •of court, upon which action was had by the justice after-wards. In such a case the justice assumes to act upon information furnished by himself, of what the parties have agreed to elsewhere; but in this case, when he acts, he has before him the written stipulation of the parties, which is just as effectual for whatever agreenients are there incorporated, as any oral agreement then made in his presence would be.

The objection that a replevin suit does not determine .the title, is also without force in a case in which the prop•erty is not taken on the writ, and where the plaintiff proceeds for damages. In such a case the same principles apply as in an action of trover.

The service of a summons in his own favor by a .constable, is only an irregularity.

The judgment below must be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Mich. 242, 1872 Mich. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parmalee-v-loomis-mich-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack