Reed v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Reed v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 755

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1892

DocketNo. 13120

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 755 (Reed 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.

Bluebook

Reed v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 755 (Mich. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel the vacation of a judgment in ejectment.

Granted December 2, 1892, with costs.

One Lashbrook, upon conveyance from one of the heirs of relator’s husband, commenced ejectment, by filing declaration against relator, who was and still is in possession of a homestead parcel in which she claimed dower. He subsequently filed his own affidavit of service in which he stated that “he served a true copy of a declaration in ejectment, of which the within is a true copy, on,” etc., “by handing it to -her in her house,” etc.

Relator consulted an attorney, and was advised that there had been no valid service, and to ignore the pretended service. Defaults were entered, and on October 20, 1886, plaintiff had judgment.

In February, 1890, the judgment entry was found defective, in that the land was not properly described, and upon plaintiff’s application, without notice to relator, a new judgment was entered as of the date of the former judgment. In March, 1890, plaintiff in the ejectment suit filed a bill for partition against relator and others, and in December, 1890, relator moved to vacate the judgment in the ejectment case.

Relator contended (1) that the return did not show service of a rule to plead; (2) that the pretended service was invalid, because made hy plaintiff in person; (3) that How., Sec. 7661 is not applicable because this is not a case of mere irregularity, but of lack of jurisdiction, and (4) that if the statute is held applicable, the motion was made within one year after any judgment was entered affecting relator’s interest in the land occupied by her. Citing Morton vs. Crane, 39 M., 528; Bush vs. Meachem, 53 M., 574.

[756]*756Respondent contended that the service by plaintiff was an irregularity only, Parmalee vs. Loomis, 24 M., 242; Granger vs. Superior Court Judge, 44 M., 384 (715); Jenness vs. Circuit Judge, 42 M., 471 (781); Steere vs. Vanderberg, 67 M., 530; Rasch vs. Moore, 57 M., 56; Union Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Page, 61 M., 75; Munn vs. Haynes, 46 M., 142; Arnold vs. Nye, 23 M., 297.

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

To compel the vacation of a judgment in ejectment.

Granted December 2, 1892, with costs.

One Lashbrook, upon conveyance from one of the heirs of relator’s husband, commenced ejectment, by filing declaration against relator, who was and still is in possession of a homestead parcel in which she claimed dower. He subsequently filed his own affidavit of service in which he stated that “he served a true copy of a declaration in ejectment, of which the within is a true copy, on,” etc., “by handing it to -her in her house,” etc.

Relator consulted an attorney, and was advised that there had been no valid service, and to ignore the pretended service. Defaults were entered, and on October 20, 1886, plaintiff had judgment.

In February, 1890, the judgment entry was found defective, in that the land was not properly described, and upon plaintiff’s application, without notice to relator, a new judgment was entered as of the date of the former judgment. In March, 1890, plaintiff in the ejectment suit filed a bill for partition against relator and others, and in December, 1890, relator moved to vacate the judgment in the ejectment case.

Relator contended (1) that the return did not show service of a rule to plead; (2) that the pretended service was invalid, because made hy plaintiff in person; (3) that How., Sec. 7661 is not applicable because this is not a case of mere irregularity, but of lack of jurisdiction, and (4) that if the statute is held applicable, the motion was made within one year after any judgment was entered affecting relator’s interest in the land occupied by her. Citing Morton vs. Crane, 39 M., 528; Bush vs. Meachem, 53 M., 574.

[756]*756Respondent contended that the service by plaintiff was an irregularity only, Parmalee vs. Loomis, 24 M., 242; Granger vs. Superior Court Judge, 44 M., 384 (715); Jenness vs. Circuit Judge, 42 M., 471 (781); Steere vs. Vanderberg, 67 M., 530; Rasch vs. Moore, 57 M., 56; Union Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Page, 61 M., 75; Munn vs. Haynes, 46 M., 142; Arnold vs. Nye, 23 M., 297.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-circuit-judge-mich-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack