TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Superintendents of the Poor v. Jury

The Superintendents of the Poor of Clinton County v. Samuel Jury

Superintendents of the Poor v. Jury, 45 N.W. 368 (Mich. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 25, 1890
Judges
Long, Other
Citations
45 N.W. 36880 Mich. 3271890 Mich. LEXIS 642
Headnotes
Poor persons — Support by relatives. The proceedings in this case were commenced under How. Stat'.. chap. 41, to compel the respondents (plaintiffs in certiorari) to maintain their aged and infirm father, and an order was made accordingly, which is sought to be set aside for want of evidence to warrant the court in making it; and it is held that there was some evidence introduced on the hearing, which was in open court, which warranted the order complained of, and it is affirmed.
Summary
Certiorari to Clinton. (Daboll, J.) The nature of the case is stated in the head-note, and the facts 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 — Long

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

Long, J.

This is a proceeding by certiorari to set aside an order made by the circuit court of Clinton *328 county, compelling tbe defendants to pay the sum of $3.90 per week for the support of their aged and infirm father. The proceedings to compel such payments were commenced under chapter 41, How. Stat., entitled “The Support of Poor Persons by their Relatives..” The only question raised on the hearing here is that there is no evidence to warrant the making of the order. The case was heard before the court, and testimony takén in open court, and that court made the finding. It would profit no one to set forth the evidence here. We are satisfied that some evidence was introduced on the hearing which warranted the order made.

The order will be 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 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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