Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Mich. 312

Lichfelt v. Kopp

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1878

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1878-01-30

<p> Return to a capias. </p> <p>The following return to a capias ad satisfaciendum is sufficient under Comp. L., § 5763: “I hereby certify and return that after diligent search and inquiry I am unable to find the within named defendant Jacob Bettinger within my bailiwick and cannot have his body as I am within commanded.”</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1880

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-01-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Suit upon a recognizance of special bail, by which the defendants undertook for the appearance of one Bettinger. The plaintiff obtained judgment against Bettinger, took out a fi. fa. and afterwards a ca. sa. and the only question arising upon the record is made upon the sufficiency of the sheriff’s return to the last named writ.

¶2. The statute (Comp. L., § 5763) provides that no action shall be brought against the special bail until a ca. sa. shall be issued etc., and returned by the sheriff “that the defendant could not be found within his county.” The return made by the sheriff is that “ I hereby certify and return that after diligent search and inquiry I am unable to find the within named defendant Jacob Bettinger within my bailiwick, and cannot have his body as I am within commanded.” This is fully equivalent to the statutory requirement, and is sufficient.

/38/mich/312 · .json · Public domain