People v. Eddinger

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Eddinger

233 Mich. 341

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1925

DocketDocket No. 132

StatusPublished

This text of 233 Mich. 341 (People v. Eddinger) 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

People v. Eddinger, 233 Mich. 341 (Mich. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Fellows, J.

This defendant was implicated in the same transaction as was the defendant in People v. Frencavage, 231 Mich. 242. They were jointly complained against, arid the information against this defendant is in the same language as the information against Frencavage. In that case we held that the information was bad and for that reason reversed the judgment, but inasmuch as there was a good complaint and a waiver of examination we remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. This case is controlled by the opinion in that case and must take the same course. It is so conceded by the learned prosecuting attorney.

For the reason stated in the opinion in that case the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion. Defendant will be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Kent county.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Bird, Shaepe, Moore, Steers, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

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

Fellows, J.

This defendant was implicated in the same transaction as was the defendant in People v. Frencavage, 231 Mich. 242. They were jointly complained against, arid the information against this defendant is in the same language as the information against Frencavage. In that case we held that the information was bad and for that reason reversed the judgment, but inasmuch as there was a good complaint and a waiver of examination we remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. This case is controlled by the opinion in that case and must take the same course. It is so conceded by the learned prosecuting attorney.

For the reason stated in the opinion in that case the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with that opinion. Defendant will be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Kent county.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Bird, Shaepe, Moore, Steers, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 Mich. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eddinger-mich-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack