Reed v. Gage

Michigan Supreme Court

Reed v. Gage

33 Mich. 179, 1876 Mich. LEXIS 17

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided January 7, 1876·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

1. The identity of the plaintiff with the plaintiff in the-suit against Cole was properly and sufficiently proved; and the judgment record in the Cole suit was therefore correctly [181]*181admitted in evidence so far as any objection growing out of the variance in name was concerned.

2. The justice’s judgment could not be attacked collaterally upon the ground of failure to make proof, as required by the statute (Comp. L. 1871, § 5305), of the authority of the plaintiff’s attorney.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam :

1. The identity of the plaintiff with the plaintiff in the-suit against Cole was properly and sufficiently proved; and the judgment record in the Cole suit was therefore correctly [181]*181admitted in evidence so far as any objection growing out of the variance in name was concerned.

2. The justice’s judgment could not be attacked collaterally upon the ground of failure to make proof, as required by the statute (Comp. L. 1871, § 5305), of the authority of the plaintiff’s attorney.

Judgment affirmed.

Reed v. Gage, 33 Mich. 179, 1876 Mich. LEXIS 17 (Mich. 1876).

Pincite

33 Mich. 179 (Reed v. Gage) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related