Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 Mich. 264

Worth v. Hand

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1874

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1874-10-07

<p>Notice of trial: Remedy: Writ of error: Mandamus. The question of the validity of a notice of trial will not he reviewed on writ of error; the proper remedy is mandamus.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1909

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-10-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This case comes before us on writ of error, and without any bill of exceptions; and the ground of error is that there was no valid notice of trial.

¶2There is no chance for an examination of the question on the record, and in this mode. • The party has mistaken his remedy. The proper course for him, if legally aggrieved, was to proceed by mandamus, as we held in Barrett v. Bacon, 18 Mich., 247and we refer to that case as decisive.

¶3The judgment must he affirmed, with costs, unless the plaintiff in error elects to dismiss the writ, which, under the peculiar circumstances, the court feel inclined to permit, but subject, of course, to the like costs as on affirmance.

/30/mich/264 · .json · Public domain