TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People ex rel. Worden v. Judge of Manistee Circuit

The People on the relation of Edwin W. Worden v. The Judge of Manistee Circuit

People ex rel. Worden v. Judge of Manistee Circuit, 33 Mich. 111 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 4, 1876
Citations
33 Mich. 1111876 Mich. LEXIS 1
Headnotes
Writ of error: Bond to stay execution: Return made: Order nunc pro tunc: Supersedeas. After return made of writ of error the circuit court has no authority, where no "bond under the statute (Comp. L. 1872, § 7122) has "been filed to stay or supersede execution, to allow a "bond to "be filed nunc pro tunc and operate as a supersedeas; the power, if any, after return to grant such relief is in the supreme court.
Summary
Application for Mandamus. The respondent at chambers, upon the ex parte application of the attorneys of a plaintiff in error who “at the time of serving the writ” of error (Comp. L. 1871, § 7122) had neglected to file a bond to stay or supersede execution, ordered that plaintiff in error have leave to file such bond nunc pro time, and thereby have recalled a previously issued execution. The application for such order, and the order, were both made after return had been made to the supreme court of the writ of error. Application is now made by defendant in error, upon notice and appearance by respondent, for mandamus to vacate such order.

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 if any power existed after return made to the writ of error, to allow the bond to be filed nune pro tunc and operate a3 a supersedeas, it was in the supreme court, where the judgment had been removed, and”that the circuit court had no authority to make the order complained of.

"Writ granted.

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11907: 11910: 11941: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Hilberg61 P. 215 (Utah 1900)
  2. Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co.110 N.W. 257 (Minn. 1907)
  3. Hendricks v. McCausey299 N.W. 847 (Mich. 1941)
  4. Coeling v. Barnard124 N.W. 533 (Mich. 1910)

Most recent

  1. Hendricks v. McCausey299 N.W. 847 (Mich. 1941)
  2. Coeling v. Barnard124 N.W. 533 (Mich. 1910)
  3. Bock v. Sauk Center Grocery Co.110 N.W. 257 (Minn. 1907)
  4. State v. Hilberg61 P. 215 (Utah 1900)

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