Creveling v. Moore
Nelson Creveling, guardian etc. v. Nancy Moore
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.
Cooley, J.
Decree in this case was entered May 26, 1877, after order pro confesso on personal service of process. On the first day of May, 1878, the defendants filed a petition that the decree and order pro confesso be set aside on the following grounds:
1. That the subpoena issued and served upon them was signed by the deputy register in his own name, and not in the name of his principal.
2. That by the subpoena the defendants were called in to answer to the bill of complaint of “Nelson Creveling, of Minnie J. Boudman,” whereas the decree is in favor of Nelson Creveling, guardian of Minnie J. Boudman.
3. That the copy of subpoena served upon them was not subscribed by the complainant or his solicitor, or by *565 the officer serving tbe same, as required by the rules of court.
The prayer of this petition was denied. This was correct. The defects were mere irregularities, and if the defendants desired to take advantage of them they should have moved promptly. After the lapse of time appearing in this case, such objections are not to be listened to.
The order appealed from is affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.