People ex rel. Stortz v. Circuit Judge

38 Mich. 243, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 43
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 23, 1878·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Breach of promise is sued for in assumpsit like any other agreement; and no statute has denied jurisdiction over such suits to justices of the peace, whose jurisdiction is exclusive in assumpsit to $100.

It was decided in Strong v. Daniels, 3 Mich., 466, that where the judgment is for an amount within the jurisdiction of a justice, and not reduced by set-off from a larger sum, or otherwise specially provided for in the statutes concerning costs, the defendant and not the plaintiff is entitled to costs. There is a clerical error in the recital of the statute in that case as reported.

The circuit judge was right in holding that on a judgment for $100, costs should go to defendant.

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

People ex rel. Stortz v. Circuit Judge, 38 Mich. 243, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 43 (Mich. 1878).

38 Mich. 243 (People ex rel. Stortz v. Circuit Judge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zimmerman v. Miller
173 N.W. 364 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
Reed v. Overlie
158 N.W. 837 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Nelson v. People
38 Mich. 618 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)