Sweet v. Palmer

Michigan Supreme Court

Sweet v. Palmer

54 N.W. 951, 95 Mich. 449

DecidedApril 28, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 54 N.W. 951 (Sweet v. Palmer) 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

Sweet v. Palmer, 54 N.W. 951, 95 Mich. 449 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

Relator is defendant in a suit commenced by summons, which was signed and sealed in blank by the clerk of the court, and delivered to the attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit, several months before it was filled out by. the attorney and placed in the'hands of the sheriff for service. It is regular upon its face, and was duly served. Relator moved to quash the suit upon the ground that the summons was not legally issued. His motion was based upon affidavits from which it appears that the attorney obtained the summons from the clerk, not for this particular suit, but for any suit that he might have occasion to bring thereafter. The court denied the motion, and relator now seeks the writ of mandamus to compel it to grant the motion.

The motion was properly denied. No abuse has been shown on the part of the attorney in issuing the writ. If he had obtained it on the very day of its issue it would have been the same as it is now. The payment of the entry fee is not necessary to confer jurisdiction. People v. Treadway, 17 Mich. 484. The clerk is under no obli[451]*451gation to deliver to an attorney a writ signed and sealed in blank, and may very properly refuse to do; but, if he chooses to trust an attorney with such a writ, it will not be held void for that reason. Potter v. Manufacturing Co., 87 Mich. 59. The statement in dhat case that “ it is not contemplated that writs are to be signed and sealed without reference to the immediate commencement of suit” was not necessary to the determination of the case, and must be regarded as dictum.

The writ is denied.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

Relator is defendant in a suit commenced by summons, which was signed and sealed in blank by the clerk of the court, and delivered to the attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit, several months before it was filled out by. the attorney and placed in the'hands of the sheriff for service. It is regular upon its face, and was duly served. Relator moved to quash the suit upon the ground that the summons was not legally issued. His motion was based upon affidavits from which it appears that the attorney obtained the summons from the clerk, not for this particular suit, but for any suit that he might have occasion to bring thereafter. The court denied the motion, and relator now seeks the writ of mandamus to compel it to grant the motion.

The motion was properly denied. No abuse has been shown on the part of the attorney in issuing the writ. If he had obtained it on the very day of its issue it would have been the same as it is now. The payment of the entry fee is not necessary to confer jurisdiction. People v. Treadway, 17 Mich. 484. The clerk is under no obli[451]*451gation to deliver to an attorney a writ signed and sealed in blank, and may very properly refuse to do; but, if he chooses to trust an attorney with such a writ, it will not be held void for that reason. Potter v. Manufacturing Co., 87 Mich. 59. The statement in dhat case that “ it is not contemplated that writs are to be signed and sealed without reference to the immediate commencement of suit” was not necessary to the determination of the case, and must be regarded as dictum.

The writ is denied.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.W. 951, 95 Mich. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-palmer-mich-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack