¶1Under the ruie laid down in Osborne v. Robbins — to which we adhere — the petition in this case is defective in not sufficiently describing the property which had been attached. In other respects we hold the petition to be sufficient. As this question of the sufficiency of the description *523goes to the jurisdiction, we hold that the application should have been dismissed. An order denying the motion to dissolve the attachment should have been granted for want of jurisdiction; and the subsequent proceedings of the Commissioner are therefore void, as he had no right to hear the case upon .its merits. The proceedings are therefore quashed, with costs to neither party.
10 Mich. 521
Nelson v. Hyde
Decided October 28, 1862
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1862-10-28
On the tenth day of June 1862, William A, Nelson presented to the Commissioner a petition, duly verified, of which the following is a copy: “ Circuit Court for the County of Wayne.— William A. Nelson ads. Oliver M. JByde.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1921
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1862-10-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →