Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 Mich. 77

Nowlin v. Tibbits

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1880

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1880-06-16

<p> Suit on appeal bond. </p> <p>A levy on real estate in case of a return of nulla bona upon an execution from justice’s court is not prerequisite to a suit upon the appeal bond.</p> <p>A justice’s neglect to make return within ten days after an appeal is perfected does not preclude a remedy on the appeal bond; the default in prosecuting the appeal is that of the appellant, and not of the appellee..</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1930

2 state decisions

Relies on Schermerhorn v. Conner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1880-06-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Marston, C. J.

¶1The action in this casp was brought to recover upon a bond given upon the appeal of a cause from justice’s court to the circuit. The appeal was dismissed for non-payment of the proper fee, and an execution thereupon issued by the justice upon the judgment and returned unsatisfied.

¶2The circuit court held that the plaintiff could not recover because he had not exhausted his remedy against the judg- ■ ment debtor by causing a transcript of the justice’s judgment to be taken to the circuit court, and issue and return of execution thereon.

¶3This was erroneous. The statute provides that the plaintiff shall not be entitled to prosecute such bond until an execution on the judgment appealed from shall have been returned that sufficient goods and chattels could not be found to satisfy the same. Comp. L., § 5457. This was- complied with, and this section is too plain to be extended by construction to requiring an effort to be made to collect from real estate. Were it not for this statute an execution from justice’s court need not. even be issued before suit brought.

¶4The case of Schermerhorn v. Conner 41 Mich. 374 is relied upon, but has no application to the present case. In that case all legal means were to be used to collect the claim; such is not the requirement of the statute in this case.

¶5It is also claimed that because the justice did not make his return to the .circuit within ten days after the appeal was perfected, the plaintiff in this case can not recover. The plaintiff in this case is not responsible for such default of the justice. The appellant und.er the terms of his bond was to perfect and prosecute to effect his appeal. The default rests with him, and not the appellees. Upon the facts of this case, as presented, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

¶6The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.
/44/mich/77 · .json · Public domain