Stadler v. Moors

On the adjourned day of a cause before a justice, tbe absence of tlio justice for a few minutes more than an hour after the time to which the cause had been adjourned, for the purposo of holding a coroner’s inquest, will not operate ¿s n discontinuance of the cause. The adjournment of a cause by a justice, on his own motion, in the absence and without the consent of the defendant, at any other time than on the return day of the writ, is a discontinuance of the cause.

Error to Wayne Circuit. Moors brought replevin before a justice of the peace, against Stadler, for a quantity of brick. The justice rendered judgment in her favor, and Stadler removed the case by certiorari to the Circuit Court, where the judgment of the justice was affirmed. Stadler then brought error. The justice in his return to the certiorari states “that upon the return day of said writ of replevin, the said parties' appeared before me, and the plaintiff declared against the said defendant in replevin for the unlawful detention of 5588 bricks, and claimed damages against the said defendant, one hundred dollars. To which declaration said defendant pleaded the general issue, and asked for an adjournment; whereupon said cause was adjourned until the 15th day of December, 1859, at 2 o’clock P. M., at which time the said parties again appeared by their attorneys, and on application of said defendant, said cause was adjourned to the 20th day of January, 1860, at two o’clock P. M.; and that on the 20th day of January aforesaid, said cause was further adjourned to the 26th of January, 1860, at 2 o’clock P. M., at which time the said plaintiff appeared by her attorney (neither said defendant nor his attorney being present), and proceeded to the trial of said cause; and after hearing the evidence, I found the said defendant did unlawfully detain said goods and chattels, and assessed the damages sustained by the plaintiff by said unlawful detention at two dollars seventy - six cents, and judgment was thereupon rendered against the defendant for-said amount, with five dollars costs of suit. And as regards. the two last adjournments of said cause, I further return,, that on the said 15th day of December, when said defendant asked for a second adjournment, the said plaintiff was present (by her agent) with her witness from a distance, and ready for the trial of said cause, but the said defendant’s attorney, Jeremiah Yan Rensselaer, being sick and unable to attend at the trial of said cause, and asking the court as a special favor for a short adjournment on that account, the same was granted, and said cause was adjourned to the 20th day of January aforesaid, at 2 o’clock P. M., and that on that day about the hour of two o’clock P. M., or a few moments afterward, the plaintiff’s agent and her witness being present (the defendant or his attorney not having yet come into court), I was unexpectedly called to hold an inquest upon a dead body, not far from my office, and on leaving I informed the plaintiff’s agent that should the defendant or his attorney, Mr. Yan Rensselaer, appear during my absence, to inform him of its cause, and that I should return at three o’clock, if possible, but at any rate within a few moments of that time. I returned to my office from five to ten minutes after three o’clock P. M., and found the plaintiff’s agent with his witnesses still there, who informed me that Mr. Yan Rensselaer, the defendant’s attorney, had been there and remained until three o’clock, and had left the office, and that the message I had left had been given to him. I immediately sent and informed him that I had returned and was ready to proceed with the trial of said cause, but received answer that he should not again appear; whereupon at my suggestion, and by consent of the plaintiff, I again adjourned the cause to the 26th day of January, at three o’clock P. M., and informed the defendant by written notice signed by me and duly served upon him by Geo. L. Scenlin, constable, that the said cause had been adjourned as above stated, at which time it would be tried unless further adjourned on application of defendant. No notice was taken whatever of the adjournment aforesaid, and the plaintiff proceeded to the trial, and judgment was rendered as aforesaid.” The errors assigned were: First. The continued absence of the justice from his office for more than one hour after the adjourned hour, to wit, on the 20th day of January, a. d. 1861, at two o’clock P. M. of said day, operated as a discontinuance of the suit, and his jurisdiction over the case ceased. Second. The adjournment of the cause by the justice on the 20th day of January, 1860, to the 26th day of January, 1860, at three o’clock P. M., was without legal cause, and' therefore operated as a discontinuance of said cause. Third. That the judgment rendered by said justice, on the 26th day of January, 1860, was irregular and without authority, and therefore void.