Wanner v. Martin

Michigan Supreme Court

Wanner v. Martin

139 N.W. 249, 173 Mich. 503, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 557

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 1913

DocketDocket No. 25

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 N.W. 249 (Wanner v. Martin) 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

Wanner v. Martin, 139 N.W. 249, 173 Mich. 503, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 557 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

To plaintiff’s declaration defendant filed a plea in abatement, and to this plea plaintiff demurred. The demurrer, coming on to be heard, was sustained, with leave to defendant to plead issuably. De[504]*504fendant sued out a writ or error. It is objected on the part of appellee that the order of the court below is not final. We are referred to the case of Campbell v. Hudson, 106 Mich. 523 (64 N. W. 483), as authority for the proposition that the order sought to be reversed is final. In that case a demurrer to a plea was overruled, and it was said by this court that, although not final in form, the order was in substance and effect a final determination of the case, and that the trial court should have entered judgment quashing the writ. It is plain that the order now sought to be reviewed is not a final order. An expeditious method of reviewing such rulings is created by Act No. 310, Pub. Acts 1905.

The writ is dismissed, with the costs of printing the brief and an attorney’s fee of $15 to appellee.

Steers, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, and Bird, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, J.

To plaintiff’s declaration defendant filed a plea in abatement, and to this plea plaintiff demurred. The demurrer, coming on to be heard, was sustained, with leave to defendant to plead issuably. De[504]*504fendant sued out a writ or error. It is objected on the part of appellee that the order of the court below is not final. We are referred to the case of Campbell v. Hudson, 106 Mich. 523 (64 N. W. 483), as authority for the proposition that the order sought to be reversed is final. In that case a demurrer to a plea was overruled, and it was said by this court that, although not final in form, the order was in substance and effect a final determination of the case, and that the trial court should have entered judgment quashing the writ. It is plain that the order now sought to be reviewed is not a final order. An expeditious method of reviewing such rulings is created by Act No. 310, Pub. Acts 1905.

The writ is dismissed, with the costs of printing the brief and an attorney’s fee of $15 to appellee.

Steers, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, and Bird, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.W. 249, 173 Mich. 503, 1913 Mich. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wanner-v-martin-mich-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack