Reed ex rel. Reed v. Fox

Circuit Court of the 15th Circuit of Michigan

Reed ex rel. Reed v. Fox

1 Mich. N.P. 142

CourtCircuit Court of the 15th Circuit of Michigan

DecidedApril 15, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Mich. N.P. 142 (Reed ex rel. Reed v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 15th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reed ex rel. Reed v. Fox, 1 Mich. N.P. 142 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Upson J.

Under Circuit Court Rule 85, (providing for amendments of course), as amended April 20th, 1860, it is [143]*143provided that “ if the pleading be such as does not require to be answered, it can be amended under this rule only within ten days after filing the same.” The so-called amended plea” and affidavit having been filed more than ten days after the filing of the plea in this case, which did not require to be answered, comes within the prohibition in the Rule, and was filed without authority. The plaintiff’s attorney having returned it with notice of refusal to receive it, (20 Wend., 276, 680; 25 Wend., 699,) and also with notice of motion that the same be stricken from the files, is entitled to have his motion granted 1 Doug. Mich. R. 434.

Defendants’ attorneys thereupon, after order made striking amended plea and affidavit from the files, moved the Court, on affidavits denying execution of the note by Paddock, for leave to file affidavit on his behalf, under Rule 79, but without showing any reason why it was not filed with the plea.

By the Court.

The cause being now on the issue calendar for trial, and the party having being aware of his irregularity, the motion comes too late; but even if admissible, no excuse is shown for the omission.

Motion denied.

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

By the Court,

Upson J.

Under Circuit Court Rule 85, (providing for amendments of course), as amended April 20th, 1860, it is [143]*143provided that “ if the pleading be such as does not require to be answered, it can be amended under this rule only within ten days after filing the same.” The so-called amended plea” and affidavit having been filed more than ten days after the filing of the plea in this case, which did not require to be answered, comes within the prohibition in the Rule, and was filed without authority. The plaintiff’s attorney having returned it with notice of refusal to receive it, (20 Wend., 276, 680; 25 Wend., 699,) and also with notice of motion that the same be stricken from the files, is entitled to have his motion granted 1 Doug. Mich. R. 434.

Defendants’ attorneys thereupon, after order made striking amended plea and affidavit from the files, moved the Court, on affidavits denying execution of the note by Paddock, for leave to file affidavit on his behalf, under Rule 79, but without showing any reason why it was not filed with the plea.

By the Court.

The cause being now on the issue calendar for trial, and the party having being aware of his irregularity, the motion comes too late; but even if admissible, no excuse is shown for the omission.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Mich. N.P. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-ex-rel-reed-v-fox-micirct15-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack