Hagar v. Coup
Wm. D. Hagar and Wesley L. Jukes v. William C. Coup
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.
Marston, J.
¥e are of opinion that under the Act of 1879 and the case of Bagley v. Pridgeon 42 Mich. 551 , residence of at least one of the parties in the city of Detroit is essential to confer jurisdiction upon the Superior Court, and that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction where none is given by the statute. Any other view would enable parties, if so disposed, to submit to and bring into that court all classes of personal actions from any part of the State.-
If the appellees disputed the right of counsel to sue out *56 the writ of error in this case, they should on motion and a proper showing have moved to dismiss the writ.
The judgment must be reversed with.costs of both courts.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 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.