Smith v. Bresnahan
This text of 26 N.W. 536 (Smith v. Bresnahan) 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.
Opinion
This is an action of replevin, and was brought to recover the possession of property seized by the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Muskegon, by virtue of [348]*348an execution issued out of the circuit court of the county of Newaygo, upon a judgment in a case wherein Wellington Persons and Edward Edwards are plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs in this case are defendants.
Said suit was commenced by declaration, containing the common counts, copies of which were served upon all the defendants named therein by the sheriff of Muskegon county.
None of the defendants appeared in the case; all were defaulted, and their defaults made absolute.
The plaintiffs’ damages were assessed by the court, and judgment rendered thereon for the sum of $312.68 damages.
The validity of this judgment is the principal question presented in this case.
The record contains the following statement of the plaintiffs’ claim in that case, and for the amount of which the judgment appears to have been rendered :
Newaygo, Mich, November 22, 1883.
Messrs. Smith, Nims, Erwm db Hoyt,
To Persons da Edwards, Dr,
Proprietors of Abstracts of Newaygo County.
October 13, 1879. To giving owners’ names of 967 descriptions, at 25 cents per description, - $241 75
November 18, 1879. To search. - 1 00
$242 75
Int. from January 1, 1880, 4 yrs. 2 mos., and 10 days, at 7 per ct.,...... 70 93
$313 68
The plaintiffs claim that the Newaygo circuit court never obtained any jurisdiction in the case wherein the judgment was rendered upon which the execution issued under which the defendant makes defense; that it does not appear that the labor and services, for which the judgment was given, were rendered in the county of Newaygo, or that the defendants, or either of them, were ever residents thereof; that the circuit court for the county of Newaygo could not obtain jurisdiction over the persons of defendants by service of [349]*349declaration upon them in an adjoining county, except under the circumstances stated in How. Stat. § 7317.1
The declaration contains the common counts, one of which is a count for work and labor; and it is averred therein that the work was done for the defendants, by the plaintiffs, in the village of Newaygo, in said county of Newaygo, and at their request, and there is no question but that the county of Muskegon adjoins that of Newaygo.
We think the record offered in evidence sufficiently shows that the work declared for, was performed in the county of N ewaygo, and that it was performed by the plaintiffs for the defendants; but it does not show that the plaintiffs were, at the time the suit was commenced, residents of the county of Newaygo. This was essential in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court to render judgment, when the service is made out of the county.
The defect is a jurisdictional one, and the judgment in the Newaygo circuit is therefore void, and furnished no justification for the sheriff, and the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 N.W. 536, 59 Mich. 346, 1886 Mich. LEXIS 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bresnahan-mich-1886.