Lemon v. Hampton
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.
Moore, J.
The sole question involved in this case is whether a summons issued from justice’s court against a nonresident on the 7th day of the month, and served upon the same day, and returnable on the 10th day of the month, one of the intervening days being Sunday, confers jurisdiction upon the justice to render a valid judgment. Counsel for plaintiff insist that it does, citing Chaddock v. Barry, 93 Mich. 542 ( 53 N. W. 785 , 18 L. R. A. 337), and Crozier v. Allen, 117 Mich. 171 ( 75 N. W. 300 ); while counsel for defendant insists the precise question was passed upon in Everts v. Fisk, 44 Mich. 515 ( 7 N. W. 81 ), where it was held such a service of a short summons was void. See Sallee v. Ireland, 9 Mich. 154 ; In re Powers’ Appeal, 29 Mich. 504 ; Tiffany, Justice’s Guide (5th Ed.), 32. We think the case is ruled by Chaddock v. Barry and Crozier v. Allen , which, in effect, overrule the earlier cases.
Judgment reversed, and judgment in justice’s court affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 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.