Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Mich. 199

Crane v. Sumner

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1875

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1875-01-19

These cases all stood in the same position. They were noticed for hearing by the plaintiff in error, on the same day that the assignment of errors was filed. Afterwards, and within the time prescribed by supreme court rule 33, defendants in error pleaded in bar- to the writ, and to this plea the plaintiff in error interposed a demurrer. No new notice of hearing was given after this new issue was joined.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1928

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-01-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court

¶1held that the notice of hearing was proper under rule 21, and if no new issue had been raised as pro*200vided for by rule 13, the eases would be properly on the docket; but that where after the notice a new issue is raised by plea in bar to the writ, this new issue must also be noticed for hearing before it cun be brought on to be heard; that a piecemeal submission of causes is not to be favored; and that the course of practice suggested by the counsel for plaintiff in error would lead to such confusion and uncertainty as to the real state of the term docket as would be embarrassing and objectionable.

¶2Motion granted.

/31/mich/199 · .json · Public domain