*82 Charge of the Court, Sutherland, J. Gentlemen oe tiie Jury : The sfatute which prescribes a punishment for murder would be only an impotent threat against the guilty were there no judicial' instrumentalities by which the accused could be apprehended,

Sutherland, J. Held, copy of affidavit annexed to writ of attachment, not required to he served with the writ. Endorsement of writ by plaintiff’s attorney may he made after motion to quash. A command, in the writ to “ summon defendant, if to be found in tills

By the Court, Brown, J. The main ground relied upon in support of the demurrer is that the alleged pretense would not furnish a reason why the owners of the goods should part with them — that no man of ordinary discretion could be thus induced to give credit

Harris, J.: The first point raised is, that this court has no authority to issue the writ asked for, and McBride vs. The Common Council of Grand Rapids, 32 Mich., 360 , is relied on to support this position. But this is an authority quite the other way. The'

By the Court, Blackman, J. The plaintiff replevied a stock of groceries attached by the defendant as Sheriff. The defendant now moves to quash, for three reasons : 1. Because of the insufficient description of -the goods in the writ. 2. Because the goods

Ry the Court, TJpson, J. -To authorize the plaintiff to commence his action by capias ad respondendum in this case, under the Statute, it was necessary for him to proeure'from the Circuit Judge or Circuit Court Commissioner, an order to hold to bail, to be

By the Court, Mitchell, J. The record of a judgment as presented, is so imperfect as to scarcely warrant its being received as a judgment recoi d. It does not in fact purport to be a judgment record, but only copies of the minutes of proceedings. It is true

By the Court, Brown, J. I think it is quite clear from the testimony, that as between Mason and Gremps, or between Mason and Briggs, who took the assignment of the mortgage, if the pleadings would warrant it, Equity would require that the mortgage be declared

The Court, Gaskill, J., rendered a judgment for non-suit against plaintiff, with costs, holding that a suit •commenced by declaration would not bar the plea of the Statute of Limitation until the declaration was; served* That the filing of the declaration,

By the Court, Higbi, J. The following are my conclusions in this case: 1st. That the City order or instrument declared on is not a negotiable bill of exchange, or a negotiable promissory note, it being payable out of a special and designated fund, and that

By the Court, Brown, J. This was an action of replevin, and comes into this Court on an appeal from Justice’s Court-The cause was tried on the merits, without a jury. In his final argument, defendant's counsel called attention to the fact that the jurat to

Sutherland, Judge. Paragraph 3856, C. L. applies to such a case. The return having been made, it is conclusive evidence that the costs and fees have been paid. The “ costs of the justice” and “ such fees ” mentioned -in that section — “ the fee paid to the justice

By the Court, Woodruff, J. -This was an action brought on a promissory note given by defendant, J. D. Wheeler Co., October 12,1867, for $125, payable September 12, 1868, with interest at ten per cent, and secured by a chattel mortgage executed by defendant

Brown, J., instructed the jury that to warrant a conviction they must find *195 1. That Byron was, at the time of the alleged offence, a constable of Allegan tofrnship. 2. That Byron was then engaged in an effort to maintain, preserve and keep the peace. 3

Sutherland, J. The writ containing a summons, and having been personally served, where a summons from this Court could be served, the Court has acquired jurisdiction of the person; and, the defendant having obtained the property by giving a bond, the motion should

*17 By the Court, Mitchele, J. There is no satisfactory evidence that the owners ever yielded or assented to the right to use their land for towing purposes, without compensation, any further than that some of them did not forbid the repairs made under Kibbee

The Court, Chirm an J., overruled the demurrer on this ground, and this was the only point in the case. On the trial the plaintiff and defendant offered their resjDective proofs. Not a single exception was taken during the trial, and the only request to charge

The Court, Parrish J.: Held that the decree was not void on account of the omission in the bill to state the residence, the petitioner having shown in her petition that she was at the time the bill was filed, and had been ever since, a resident of Grand Rapids

By the Court, Brown, J. In this case the Plaintiff brought suit in the Circuit Court, in assumpsit; his claim, with interest, amounting to $148. Pending the suit, the defendant made a payment to the plaintiff, so that at the time the cause was'heard, the amount

Sutherland, J. The case of The People vs. DeMill, 15 Mich., 164 , is cited in support of the demurrer. That ease is not applicable ; it does not declare what allegations of a defendant’s corporate existence are necessary in a declaration. The corporation was