¶1A writ of mandamus was denied under Wonderly v. Circuit Judge, 41 Mich. 722, where a capias was made returnable “on the seventh day of October, 1879, that being the first day of the next succeeding term,” when, in fact, the first day of said term was Oct. 6,1879. And in denying the application of the defendant for a mandamus to set aside the writ it was held that the capias showed plainly on its face that if was intended to be returnable • on the- first day of term, which was the only day on which it could be made' returnable. (This was before the 1885 amendment of the statute); that, having such a recital in it the writ furnished the means of its "own correction, and the erroneous mention of a wrong day of the month would not vitiate it; that one or the other day being incorrect it must be held that the intention was to make the writ returnable on the day whieh would be legal.
1 Mich. Pr. 7
Epstein v. Peck
Decided June 15, 1896
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1896-06-15
Relator sought to compel the respondent by mandamus to quash a writ of capias ad respondend/um on the ground that the return day was more than three months after the teste day; that the first day of the next term of court fell within said three months, which date should have been the return day under 3 How.
Relies on People ex rel. Wonderly v. Kent Circuit Judge
Decided 1896-06-15