People ex rel. Stortz v. Circuit Judge
The People ex rel. Dorothy Stortz v. The Circuit Judge for Ingham County
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Per Curiam.
Breach of promise is sued for in assumpsit like any other agreement; and no statute has denied jurisdiction over such suits to justices of the peace, whose jurisdiction is exclusive in assumpsit to $100.
It was decided in Strong v. Daniels, 3 Mich., 466 , that where the judgment is for an amount within the jurisdiction of a justice, and not reduced by set-off from a larger sum, or otherwise specially provided for in the statutes concerning costs, the defendant and not the plaintiff is entitled to costs. There is a clerical error in the recital of the statute in that case as reported.
The circuit judge was right in holding that on a judgment for $100, costs should go to defendant.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.