People ex rel. Stortz v. Circuit Judge
This text of 38 Mich. 243 (People ex rel. Stortz v. 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
38 Mich. 243, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-stortz-v-circuit-judge-mich-1878.