TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Patterson v. McRea

William Patterson v. Richard McRea

Patterson v. McRea, 29 Mich. 258 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 29, 1874
Citations
29 Mich. 2581874 Mich. LEXIS 78
Headnotes
Justice's courts: Adjournments: Consent: Estoppel. A defendant wbo has requested, or at least consented, to, an adjournment of a suit in justice’s court on account of the sickness of the justice, will not be heard to complain that . such adjournment was on the justice’s own motion and being for more than six days worked a discontinuance so as to deprive the justice of jurisdiction to proceed further with the caiise.
Summary
Error to Oakland Circuit. Patterson brought trespass against McRea before a justice of the peace. On the, return day both parties appeared and the cause was adjourned at the request of the justice on account of his being sick: the adjourned day however being fixed on a day named by the defendant, which was seven days from the return day. On the adjourned day the defendant moved for a judgment of discontinuance on the ground that the adjournment by the justice for more than six days on his own motion deprived him of jurisdiction to proceed. This being overruled, the cause was again adjourned on the plaintiff’s motion, against the ■ defendant’s objection; and on that adjourned day the defendant did not appear, but the plaintiff did and proceeded to trial and recovered a judgment. The defendant took the cause by certiorari to the circuit, assigning as errors the action of the justice in adjourning the cause on his own motion for more than six days, and in refusing on defendant’s motion to render judgment of discontinuance. The circuit court reversed the judgment of the justice and rendered judgment for costs of-that court and of the justice’s court against the plaintiff. The plaintiff brings error.

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 Court

held that the adjournment in question was in legal effect an adjournment at the request, or at least by the consent, of the defendant, and one therefore of which he will not be heard to complain.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1876–1877: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11904–1905: 11906–1907: 11910–1911: 11938–1939: 118762026peak 1876 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Troy v. Rodgers127 N.W. 31 (Mich. 1910)
  2. People v. Washburn280 N.W. 132 (Mich. 1938)
  3. Hobbs v. the German-American Doctors1904 OK 60, 78 P. 356
  4. Blair v. Compton33 Mich. 414 (1876)
  5. Beam v. Reynolds108 N.W. 83 (Mich. 1906)
  6. Simon v. Sempliner48 N.W. 700 (Mich. 1891)

Most recent

  1. People v. Washburn280 N.W. 132 (Mich. 1938)
  2. Troy v. Rodgers127 N.W. 31 (Mich. 1910)
  3. Beam v. Reynolds108 N.W. 83 (Mich. 1906)
  4. Hobbs v. the German-American Doctors1904 OK 60, 78 P. 356
  5. Shaw v. Fortine57 N.W. 128 (Mich. 1893)
  6. Simon v. Sempliner48 N.W. 700 (Mich. 1891)

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