TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anderson v. Baughman

Ebenezer Anderson and Others v. John C. Baughman and Others

Anderson v. Baughman, 6 Mich. 298 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 10, 1859
Citations
6 Mich. 298
Headnotes
In computing time on notices of hearing, the day on which the notice is served is to be excluded, and the first day of term included. An intervening Sunday is not to be excluded in such computation.
Summary
Appeal from Wayne Circuit in Chancery.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Chief Justice:

The notice is sufficient. Rule 1 governs this case. *

Rulo 7 is as follows: “The day on which any rule shall be entered, or order, notice, pleading, or paper served, shall be excluded in the computation of the time for complying with the exigency of such rule, order or notice, pleading or paper, and *299 the day on wliicb a compliance therewith is required, shall be included, except where it shall fall on a Sunday, in which case the party shall have the next day to comply therewith. When by the terms of any order an act is directed to be performed instanter, it shall be done in twenty-four hours.”

The rule in respect to notices of hearing is as follows: “Rule 26. Notices of special motions, and of the argument of calendar causes, when necessary, shall be notices of at least ten days where the attorney of the adverse party resides over one hundred miles from the place of hearing; if over fifty and less than one hundred miles, of at least six days, and in all other cases of at least four days; and a copy of the affidavits and other papers on which any motion shall be made, shall be served with such notice.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1877–1878: 11903–1904: 11907–1908: 11911–1912: 11969–1970: 12017–2018: 118772026peak 1877 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Green66 Mo. 631 (1877)
  2. State v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad143 S.W. 785 (Mo. 1912) · Concurrence
  3. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Muchenberger105 Mo. App. 47 (1904)
  4. Lickly v. Bishopp114 N.W. 69 (Mich. 1907)
  5. Jeffrey Haksluoto v. Mt Clemens Regional Medical CenterNo. 153723 (Mich. June 27, 2017)
  6. Fowler v. Anderson181 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

Most recent

  1. Jeffrey Haksluoto v. Mt Clemens Regional Medical CenterNo. 153723 (Mich. June 27, 2017)
  2. Fowler v. Anderson181 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
  3. State v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad143 S.W. 785 (Mo. 1912) · Concurrence
  4. Lickly v. Bishopp114 N.W. 69 (Mich. 1907)
  5. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Muchenberger105 Mo. App. 47 (1904)
  6. State v. Green66 Mo. 631 (1877)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list