Smithman v. Gray

Michigan Supreme Court

Smithman v. Gray

168 N.W. 1001, 203 Mich. 327, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 588

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1918

DocketDocket No. 17

StatusPublished

This text of 168 N.W. 1001 (Smithman v. Gray) 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

Smithman v. Gray, 168 N.W. 1001, 203 Mich. 327, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 588 (Mich. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Steere, J.

This case is conceded both in the record and briefs of counsel to be identical in material facts and controlling questions with Smithman v. Gray, ante, 317. Each is an appeal from a judgment in the Wayne county circuit court upon directed verdict against defendant Edward Gray, based on a Pennsylvania judgment without personal service rendered by the court of common- pleas for Crawford county upon an assigned note, with power of attorney, given to the Riverside Engine Co. by Gray. Like defense is sought to be made and the same course was pursued in each case. The controlling issue in both cases is the right to question the jurisdiction of thé court rendering the foreign judgment. The opinion in that case disposes of this, and for the reasons there stated this judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted defendant.

Ostrander, C. J., and Bird, Moore, Brooke, Fellows, Stone, and Kuhn, JJ., concurred.

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

Steere, J.

This case is conceded both in the record and briefs of counsel to be identical in material facts and controlling questions with Smithman v. Gray, ante, 317. Each is an appeal from a judgment in the Wayne county circuit court upon directed verdict against defendant Edward Gray, based on a Pennsylvania judgment without personal service rendered by the court of common- pleas for Crawford county upon an assigned note, with power of attorney, given to the Riverside Engine Co. by Gray. Like defense is sought to be made and the same course was pursued in each case. The controlling issue in both cases is the right to question the jurisdiction of thé court rendering the foreign judgment. The opinion in that case disposes of this, and for the reasons there stated this judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted defendant.

Ostrander, C. J., and Bird, Moore, Brooke, Fellows, Stone, and Kuhn, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W. 1001, 203 Mich. 327, 1918 Mich. LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithman-v-gray-mich-1918.