Salmanovitz v. Dexter-Davison Markets, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Salmanovitz v. Dexter-Davison Markets, Inc.

169 N.W.2d 516, 17 Mich. App. 390, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1212

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1969

DocketDocket 4,762

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 169 N.W.2d 516 (Salmanovitz v. Dexter-Davison Markets, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salmanovitz v. Dexter-Davison Markets, Inc., 169 N.W.2d 516, 17 Mich. App. 390, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1212 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On April 7, 1963, plaintiff sustained an injury while on defendant’s premises. A negligence action was commenced on April 4, 1966, three days before the statute of limitations had run. The summons and complaint were turned over to Robert Easton, bailiff for the Wayne county circuit.-court commissioners. In personam service was made and defendant notified in Oakland county on July 2,1966. Upon actual receipt of service, defendant filed a motion to quash service and for summary judgment, stating that the statute of limitations had run. From a denial of this motion defendant appeals.

A careful analysis of CLS 1961, § 600.1074 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.1074) indicates that a commissioner’s bailiff has a very limited scope of authority. MCLA § 600.1074 states in part that:

“The bailiff shall possess only the powers necessary in the service and execution of process issued by the circuit court commissioners of the county.” (Emphasis added.)

Reasonable interpretation of the above-quoted statute leads to the conclusion that unless process issues from, and is given to the bailiff, by the circuit court commissioner of the county, his power as an officer of the court to serve process is curtailed. Any service of process unconnected with the commissioner is beyond the bailiff’s official statutory power. When he accepts papers to be served from another person or entity not connected with the commissioner, the bailiff acts as an ordinary citizen or layman. As such, he is able to serve process on his own, but he *392 can-hot be 'considered an officer of- the court for immediate service which would toll the statute of limitations for 90 days under CLS 1961, § 600.5856 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27 A.5856 [3]).

Further, even ignoring the above reasoning, Easton as a Wayne county bailiff could not have properly served the papers in Oakland county so as to 'toll the -statute. See Whitehead v. Van Buren Circuit. Judge (1922), 220 Mich 504; Higgens v. Hampshire Products, Inc. (1948), 319 Mich 674, 676, Sharpe, J. (dissenting in part).

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

On April 7, 1963, plaintiff sustained an injury while on defendant’s premises. A negligence action was commenced on April 4, 1966, three days before the statute of limitations had run. The summons and complaint were turned over to Robert Easton, bailiff for the Wayne county circuit.-court commissioners. In personam service was made and defendant notified in Oakland county on July 2,1966. Upon actual receipt of service, defendant filed a motion to quash service and for summary judgment, stating that the statute of limitations had run. From a denial of this motion defendant appeals.

A careful analysis of CLS 1961, § 600.1074 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.1074) indicates that a commissioner’s bailiff has a very limited scope of authority. MCLA § 600.1074 states in part that:

“The bailiff shall possess only the powers necessary in the service and execution of process issued by the circuit court commissioners of the county.” (Emphasis added.)

Reasonable interpretation of the above-quoted statute leads to the conclusion that unless process issues from, and is given to the bailiff, by the circuit court commissioner of the county, his power as an officer of the court to serve process is curtailed. Any service of process unconnected with the commissioner is beyond the bailiff’s official statutory power. When he accepts papers to be served from another person or entity not connected with the commissioner, the bailiff acts as an ordinary citizen or layman. As such, he is able to serve process on his own, but he *392 can-hot be 'considered an officer of- the court for immediate service which would toll the statute of limitations for 90 days under CLS 1961, § 600.5856 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27 A.5856 [3]).

Further, even ignoring the above reasoning, Easton as a Wayne county bailiff could not have properly served the papers in Oakland county so as to 'toll the -statute. See Whitehead v. Van Buren Circuit. Judge (1922), 220 Mich 504; Higgens v. Hampshire Products, Inc. (1948), 319 Mich 674, 676, Sharpe, J. (dissenting in part).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 N.W.2d 516, 17 Mich. App. 390, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salmanovitz-v-dexter-davison-markets-inc-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack