Case ID: howell-np_1/html/0019-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wixon, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tuscola Circuit.
    
    LEOPOLD NEWBAUER et al vs. JAMES H. CUMMINGS.
    
      Clerk of Court — Amending Writ.
    
    A writ is not void though signed by the clerk of the court at another place in the county than the county seat. Where defendant’s name appears in a writ as the party defendant, but is omitted in the portion commanding- the officer to summon defendant, in such case the omission is an irregularity that may be cured by amendment to the writ.
    
      Motion to quash, writ of replevin: — For the reason that the writ was not issued at the county seat (Caro), but was signed by a deputy clerk at the village of Vassar.
    Also, for the further reason that the name of defendant was omitted from the command to summon. .
    The name was correctly stated in the writ, as the the party defendant to whom security should be given, but in the command to summon no name was inserted in the blank for that purpose.
    Decided May 14, 1880.
    
      B. W. Huston and F. L. Fates for the motion.
    
      Taylor and McKay and C. P. Black contra.
   The Coubt,

Wixon, J.,

denied the motion, holding that the writ being otherwise properly issued, was not void, though signed by a deputy clerk not at the county seat, but at another place within the county. The omission of the defendant’s name from that part of the writ containing the command to summon, is a mere irregularity, and the writ may be amended so as to correspond with the name in the recital as to giving-security.

Kimball & Austin Mnfg. Co. vs. Vroman, 35 Mich., 310, and cases cited.

Barber vs. Smith, 41 Mich., 138.