« PreviousContinue »
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, by
WILLIAM JENNISON, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
5 - 11 - 1869
PRINTED BY TUR
TRIBUNE PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT,
214 JEFFERSON AVE., DETROIT,
THOMAS M. COOLEY, Chief Justice.
*ISAAC P. CHRISTIANCY,
Judges of Circuit Courts.
FLAVIUS J. LITTLEJOHN.
RECOND CIRCUIT, NATHANIEL BACON.
J. G. SUTHERLAND.
THIRD CIRCUIT. HENRY B. BROWN. DJARED PATCHIN.
CLARENCE E. EDDIE.
FIFTH CIRCUIT. GEORGE WOODRUFF.
J. G. RAMSDELL.
MOSES B. HOPKINS.
LOCIS S. LOVELL.
* Justice CHRISTIANCY was prevented, by sickness, from hearing the causes argued at the April Term, 1868, at Detroit.
• Jared Patchin was elected November 3, 1868, to fill vacancy. « Now deceased. The office is vacant.
At the October Term, 1868, at Detroit, the following rules were adopted to stand as No. 56 of the Supreme Court and No. 100 and 101 of the Circuit Court:
No. 56. When, after the death of one party to a judgment without survivors and before his representatives have revived the same, the adverse party sues out a writ of error from this court, no notice need be given of such issue until the same is returned. But the plaintiff in error, or the representatives of the adverse party to the judgment, may at any time after such return file an affidavit of such death, and of the appointment of such representatives, and thereupon suggest the same of record, and the time for assigning error shall not begin to run until said plaintiff in error shall make such suggestion, or until he is notified of such suggestion, if made by such representatives. No scire facius shall be necessary in this court to hear errors or to revive such judgment, but after such suggestion the case shall proceed as if such representatives had been brought in originally as respondents.
No. 100. A scire facius shall not be necessary to revive a judgment after the seath of either party ; but, in lieu of such writ, a motion may be mad upon affilavit and notice to revive the same; and an order of revival made upon such motion shall have as full force and effect as if proceedings had been had by scire fucias.
No. 101. When, after trial or judgment, and before the final settlement of a bill of exceptions, finding, or case for review, either party shall die leaving no survivor, the representatives of the deceased party, when they have notified the adverse party of their appointment, shall be entitled to notice of any further proceedings on his behalf to perfect such settlement, and shall notify him of all further proceedings on their own behalf for that purpose. But if such bill, tinding or case shall have been settled on behalf of the adverse party before he is so notified of such appointment, such representatives may, within thirty days after their appointment and qualification, apply to the judge who heard the cause to have the same opened for further settlement upon amendments proposed by them, on such notice as he shall direct to the adverse party. And no delay between the death of such clecedent, and the notice to be given by his representatives of their appointment, shall prejudice the adverse party, or cause him to lose any of his rights in obtaining any such settlement.
TABLE OF CASES
REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.
Armstrong, Singer Manufacturing Company, V.,
517 Auditor General, People v. 161 Aylesworth o. Herrington et.
417 Bell c. Utley et. al., .
508 Bishop r. Bishop, .
211 Board of Registration, Fourth
Ward, City of Detroit, Peo-
427 Boinay o. Coats,
411 Bowker 0. Johnson, .
42 Boyd et. al. Robinson '., 128 Brooks r. Nichols et. al., 38 Brown o. People, .
429 Burhans et. al. 2. Corey et. al., 282 Burt et. al. Ring O., .
405 Butterfield v. Seligman, 95 Campau 0. Coates,
2:35 Campau, Romeyn v. .
327 Capling v. Herman,
521 Caplis, Romeyn v.
311 Caplis, Romeyn v.
49 Carver, Inkster o.
64 ('ircuit Judge, Branch Co. People t. .
67 City of Detroit, County of Wayne r...
390 City of Detroit, llobert 0. 246 City of Lusing et. al., Kerr et. al. n.
34 City of Lusig et. al., Scofield of, ul. 7.
437 ('lemens et al., Stance r. 402 Clevelanil & Toledo. R. R. Co. r. Perkins,
296 Coilies, Campai 0.
235 Coats, Boinay n.
411 Cooper 0. Cooper,
Corey et. al., Berhans et. al. c. 289 County of Wayne c. City of Detroit,.
390 Cross et. al. 1. McMaken. 511 Crowell et. al., Tremble 0.
193 Dean et al., School District
No. 13, of Township of Oshi-
223 Demaray 1. Little et. al, 330 Detroit and Lake Superior
Iron Manufacturing Com-
141 Detroit and Milwaukee R. R.
Company r. Van Steinburg, 99 Doesburg, People r. .
1:35 Dudgeon 1. Haryart,
273 Ellis, Ilogsett c.
351 Farwell, Savercool c.
. 308 First National Bank of Tecumseh, Smith r.
479 Fort St. R. R. Co Smith 0.. 00 Garbutt, People 0.
9 Granger 1. Hathaway, . 500 Great Western R. R. Com
pany 1. Ilawkins et. al., Flaggart, Dudgeon v.
273 Harrison et. al. 1. Metz, Ilart e. Henderson,
218 Hathaway, Granger c'. 300 Ilawkins et, al c. Great West
ern R. R. Company, . 57 Ilenderson, Ilart 1.
218 Herman, ('apling a..
524 Ilurrington et. al., Ayles
worth 0. Hobart . City of Detroit, . 2.16 Llogsett r. Ellis,
351 Inkster r. Carver,.
61 Jacobs, Parkhurst r.
PAGE. Jenny v. Perkins .
28 Raymond et. al., Phillips 0. 287 Johnson, Bowker v.. 42 Ring v. Burt,
465 Johnson, Molby v.
382 Robinson v. Boyd et. al., 128 Kerr et. al. 0. City of Lans- Rogers, Van Valkenburg et. ing et. al., 34
322 Little et. al., Demaray v. 386
Romeyn o. Campau,
327 McMaken, Cross et. al. v. . 511 Romeyn o. Caplis
341 Mallory et. al, Nash et. al. v. 232 Romeyn 0. Caplis,
449 Maxon v. Perrott, 332 Ryan, People v.
159 Mead, Vinton et. al. v. 388 Savercool 0. Farwell,
308 Metz, Harrison et. al. v. 377 School District No. 13, of Mitchell v. Shuert,
65 Township of Oshtemo, v. Mizner, Monnier o.
271 Dean et. al. Molby v. Johnson,
382 Scofield et. al. v. City of LansMonnier o. Mizner 271 ing et. al.,
437 Monroe et. al. Woods v. 238 Seligman, Butterfield v. 95 Nash et. al. v. Mallory et. al. v. 232 Shearer, Perrott v.
48 Newberry v. Detroit and Lake Shuert, Mitchell o.
65 Superior Manufacturing Co., 141 Singer Manufacturing ComNichols et al., Brooks v. 38
pany V. Armstrong,
517 Parkhurst v. Jacobs,
302 Smith v. First National Bank People v. Auditor General, . 161 of Tecumseh,
479 People v. Board of Registra- Smith 0. Fort St. R. R. Co.. 66
tion of Fourth Ward, City Stange v. Clemens et. al., . 402 of Detroit, 427 Stange v. Wilson,
342 People, Brown v..
429 Stephens et. al., Wixom et. People o. Circ't Judge, Branch
Tefft v. Windsor,
425 People v. Doesburg,
135 Tefft et. al. o. Windsor, 486 People v. Garbutt,
9 Treadway et. al., People v. 480 People v. Pritchard, .
260 Tremble 0. Crowell et. al., 493 People o. Pritchard, . 338 Utley et. al., Bell v. .
508 People o. Pritchard,
341 Van Steinburg, Detroit and People c. Ryan,
Milwaukee R. R. Co. v. 99 People v. Treadwell et. al., 480 Van Valkenburg, et. al. People, Walcott v.
322 Perkins, Cleveland and Toledo Vinton et. al. v. Mead, 388 R. R. 0. 296 Walcott v. People,
68 Perkins, Jenny v..
28 Wilson, Stange v. Perrott, Maxon v. 332 Wilson, Wright v.
192 Perrott v. Shearer, 48 Windsor, Tefft v..
425 Phillips r. Raymond et. al., 287
Windsor, Tefft et. al. v. 486 Pritchard, People v. .
260 Wixom et. al. v. Stephens Pritchard, People v.. 338 et. al.,
518 Pritchard, People v.
341 Woods v. Monroe et. al., 238 Proctor c. Prout, . 473 Wright v. Wilson,
192 Prout, Proctor v. .
al. v. .