TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wanner v. Martin

Wanner v. Martin, 139 N.W. 249 (Mich. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 3, 1913
Docket
No. 25
Judges
Bird, Brooke, Kuhn, McAlvay, Moore, Ostrander, Steers, Stone
Citations
139 N.W. 249173 Mich. 5031913 Mich. LEXIS 557
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Demurrer to Plea — Final Judgment. Error does not lie to review an order sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s plea in abatement, with leave to defendant to plead to the declaration, because the order entered is not a final determination; defendant’s remedy is by writ of certiorari under Act No. 310, Pub. Acts 1905.
Summary
Error to Saginaw; Gage, J. Case by Madeline Clements Wanner against Fred J. Martin for slander. Defendant pleaded in abatement and a demurrer to the plea was sustained. Defendant brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ostrander

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

Ostrander, J.

To plaintiff’s declaration defendant filed a plea in abatement, and to this plea plaintiff demurred. The demurrer, coming on to be heard, was sustained, with leave to defendant to plead issuably. De *504 fendant sued out a writ or error. It is objected on the part of appellee that the order of the court below is not final. We are referred to the case of Campbell v. Hud son, 106 Mich. 523 ( 64 N. W. 483 ), as authority for the proposition that the order sought to be reversed is final. In that case a demurrer to a plea was overruled, and it was said by this court that, although not final in form, the order was in substance and effect a final determination of the case, and that the trial court should have entered judgment quashing the writ. It is plain that the order now sought to be reviewed is not a final order. An expeditious method of reviewing such rulings is created by Act No. 310, Pub. Acts 1905.

The writ is dismissed, with the costs of printing the brief and an attorney’s fee of $15 to appellee.

Steers, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, and Bird, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

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
Campbell v. Hudson, 64 N.W. 483 (Mich. 1895) 4

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