Case ID: mich_29/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Patterson v. Richard McRea.
    
      Justice's courts: Adjournments: Consent: Estoppel. A defendant wbo has requested, or at least consented, to, an adjournment of a suit in justice’s court on account of the sickness of the justice, will not be heard to complain that . such adjournment was on the justice’s own motion and being for more than six days worked a discontinuance so as to deprive the justice of jurisdiction to proceed further with the caiise.
    
      Heard and decided April 29
    
    Error to Oakland Circuit.
    Patterson brought trespass against McRea before a justice of the peace. On the, return day both parties appeared and the cause was adjourned at the request of the justice on account of his being sick: the adjourned day however being fixed on a day named by the defendant, which was seven days from the return day. On the adjourned day the defendant moved for a judgment of discontinuance on the ground that the adjournment by the justice for more than six days on his own motion deprived him of jurisdiction to proceed. This being overruled, the cause was again adjourned on the plaintiff’s motion, against the ■ defendant’s objection; and on that adjourned day the defendant did not appear, but the plaintiff did and proceeded to trial and recovered a judgment. The defendant took the cause by certiorari to the circuit, assigning as errors the action of the justice in adjourning the cause on his own motion for more than six days, and in refusing on defendant’s motion to render judgment of discontinuance. The circuit court reversed the judgment of the justice and rendered judgment for costs of-that court and of the justice’s court against the plaintiff. The plaintiff brings error.
    
      Edward Oahill and Charles é W. JV. Draper, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      J. W. Robbins, George P. Voorheis and J. Ten Eyck, for defendant in error.
   The Court

held that the adjournment in question was in legal effect an adjournment at the request, or at least by the consent, of the defendant, and one therefore of which he will not be heard to complain.

Judgment reversed.