O'Donnell v. St. Clair Circuit Judge
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.
Per Cüriam.
The application for an order to show cause is denied, for the reason that an answer need not be signed by the defendant personally when answer upon oath is waived in the bill. It is sufficient if it be signed by his solicitor. See Chancery Rule 10, subd. e. The fact that the answer is one in the nature of a cross-bill is unimportant, as a similar practice prevails as to bills of complaint. Chancery Rule 1, subd. a. Eveland v. Stephenson, 45 Mich. 396 .
It is not to be inferred from this determination that mandamus would be the appropriate remedy if relator had a grievance. That question we do not decide.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
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.