TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scullen v. George

Patrick Scullen v. David George

Scullen v. George, 31 N.W. 841 (Mich. 1887)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1887
Judges
Champlin, Other
Citations
31 N.W. 84165 Mich. 2151887 Mich. LEXIS 585
Disposition
Reversed and judgment entered for defendant.
Headnotes
Justices of the peace — Adjournment of came for more than six days— Discontinuance. An adjournment of a suit in justice’s court for more than six days at the request of the plaintiff, without a showing on oath as provided by How. Stat. § 6899, and against the objection of the defendant, operates as a discontinuance of the cause.
Summary
Error to Wayne. (Full bench.) Case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Champlin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Champlin, J.

The parties appeared upon the return-day of the summons before the justice, and joined issue. The defendant announced himself ready for trial. The plaintiff asked that the cause be adjourned on account of the absence of material witnesses, without whom he could not safely proceed to trial, and in order to enable him to procure the attendance of said witnesses. The defendant objected to the adjournment. No showing was made, by the oath of the plaintiff or the oath of any other person, of the reasons upon which the adjournment was asked.

The justice overruled the objection, and granted an adjournment from the nineteenth of May to the thirty-first of May, 1881, at 1 o’clock in the afternoon. The defendant did not appear on the adjourned day, but treated the adjournment as unauthorized, and as a discontinuance of the suit. The plaintiff appeared on the adjourned day, and the justice proceeded and tried the cause ex parte, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant sued out a writ of certiorari to the circuit court, and the judgment was there affirmed.

The justice had no authority to adjourn the cause, against defendant’s objection, without a showing made upon oath. How. Stat. § 6899. The adjournment was not made under the authority of section 6903, as that only allows an adjournment not exceeding six days. The adjournment operated as a discontinuance of the suit. Stadler v. Moors, 9 Mich. 264 ; Ruberts v. Hathaway, 42 Id. 592.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and a judgment entered here for defendant, with costs of all the courts.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 11898: 11912: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Benoit v. Revoir77 N.W. 605 (N.D. 1898) · Dissent
  2. Morrissey v. Blasky134 N.W. 319 (N.D. 1912)
  3. Friendly v. Lee25 P. 396 (Or. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Morrissey v. Blasky134 N.W. 319 (N.D. 1912)
  2. Benoit v. Revoir77 N.W. 605 (N.D. 1898) · Dissent
  3. Friendly v. Lee25 P. 396 (Or. 1890)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Stadler v. Moors, 9 Mich. 264 (1861) 6

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