Michigan Reports (Volume 156); Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of Michigan (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1909. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... "(5) Because said justice erred in permitting said summons to be amended, if the same was amended. "(6) That said justice had no jurisdiction to render a judgment in said cause. (?) Because said justice had no power to make the amendment in the names of the parties which was asked for and allowed." The return of the justice showed that after the service of the summons he permitted the summons in the case to be amended so that the names of the plaintiffs should read: ' Margaret G. Osborne and John W. Osborne, an incompetent person, by his guardian, John McClennahan." In the brief of appellants' counsel, the effect of the amendments allowed by the justice is said to be: (a) It permitted the name of the ward to be substituted as plaintiff and the guardian as the representative; (6) it changed the word "administrator" to the word "guardian;" (c) it changed the name of "John W. Osgood " to "John W. Osborne." The brief proceeds: "The changes which were brought about in 'a'and '6' were probably within the power of the justice to permit, but the change brought about in 'c' was not within his power, because that was a substitution of parties." It is clear that the allegations of error contained in the special appeal are, with the exception of the third, fourth, fifth, and seventh, too general. See Courtis v. Garrison. 148 Mich. 226. The affidavit for special appeal does not state the contents of the summons, but the inference to be drawn from the fourth allegation of error is that what was meant by the third allegation to be averred was that the name of John W. Osborne did not appear as plaintiff, but that the name of John McClennahan, as guardian of John W. Osborne, did. The averment that the justice had no power to allow the amendment in the names of the parti...

R907

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles9070
Mobicred@R85pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1909. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... "(5) Because said justice erred in permitting said summons to be amended, if the same was amended. "(6) That said justice had no jurisdiction to render a judgment in said cause. (?) Because said justice had no power to make the amendment in the names of the parties which was asked for and allowed." The return of the justice showed that after the service of the summons he permitted the summons in the case to be amended so that the names of the plaintiffs should read: ' Margaret G. Osborne and John W. Osborne, an incompetent person, by his guardian, John McClennahan." In the brief of appellants' counsel, the effect of the amendments allowed by the justice is said to be: (a) It permitted the name of the ward to be substituted as plaintiff and the guardian as the representative; (6) it changed the word "administrator" to the word "guardian;" (c) it changed the name of "John W. Osgood " to "John W. Osborne." The brief proceeds: "The changes which were brought about in 'a'and '6' were probably within the power of the justice to permit, but the change brought about in 'c' was not within his power, because that was a substitution of parties." It is clear that the allegations of error contained in the special appeal are, with the exception of the third, fourth, fifth, and seventh, too general. See Courtis v. Garrison. 148 Mich. 226. The affidavit for special appeal does not state the contents of the summons, but the inference to be drawn from the fourth allegation of error is that what was meant by the third allegation to be averred was that the name of John W. Osborne did not appear as plaintiff, but that the name of John McClennahan, as guardian of John W. Osborne, did. The averment that the justice had no power to allow the amendment in the names of the parti...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 13mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

250

ISBN-13

978-1-153-85273-9

Barcode

9781153852739

Categories

LSN

1-153-85273-X



Trending On Loot