Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Sutherland, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The First Congregational Society of East Saginaw vs. Humphrey Shaw et al.
    
    Motion to set aside a judgment on dofnultfor irregularity.
    1. Service of declaration and notice of rule to plead is sufficient to put a defendant on inquiry in' respect to irregularities appearing on the fuco of the record,and lie should apply without delay on learning that judgment has been rendered to set it aside.
    2. A subsequent request for time and promise to pay is a waiver of objections for the irregularity,-
    3. Amistake in the name oftheplaintifF after such waiver may be corrected.
    
      Saginaw Circuit Court,
    
    
      June, 1869.
    Motion to set aside judgment on default for irregularity. Declaration and notice of rule to plead in clue form served, but rule to plead defective — the word “Society” in the name of plaintiff, and name of defendant Aiken, in the title of the suit, omitted. After the judgment was entered and execution issued — about the 9th of June inst. — defendant requested delay and promised to pay the debt on the 26th, of June. The request was acceded to. On the 26th June this motion made.
    
      D. W. G. Gage for Plaintiff.
    
      Geo. K. Newcomb for Defendants.
   By the Court, Sutherland, J.

The service of the declaration- and notice of rule to plead was sufficient to put the doiendants on inquiry in respect to irregularities appearing on the face off the record. Hindes vs. Tubbs, 10 John. R., 487. The defendants, on learning that judgment had been taken, were bound to-apply without delay to set aside the irregular proceedings. Fletcher vs. Wells, 6 Taunt., 191; 4 Mich., 186; Green’s Pr, 439. The request for time and promise to pay then made were a waiver of the irregularity. Rawes vs. Knight, 1 Bing., 132.

Motion denied, with costs.

The rule to plead/ may be amended nunc pro tunc Jackson vs. Young, 1 Cow, 131; Close vs. Gillespy, 3 John., 525; Chichester vs. Cande, 3 Cow., 39; Norvill vs. McHenry, 1 Mich., 227.