Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/0055-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sutherland, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George K. Newcomb, vs. Henry Miller, et. al.
    
    Tub lunguagu in C. L., g 5013, “return of the writ,” níosuw, return day of the writ.
    
    
      Saginaw County, Circuit Court,
    
    
      November 29th, 1869.
    Motion for judgment of discontinuance on the -ground of plaintiff’s neglect to nave his sureties in the replevin bond, justify, after exception.
    Plaintiff insists that the sureties were not seasonably excepted to, the exception having been served more than 20 days after the actual return of the writ, though within 20 days after the return day.
    o endant’s counsel cited, 2 Hill, 357.
    
      Geo. K. Newcomb, in person, W. L. Webber, of Counsel.
    
      J. J. Wheeler, lor Defendant.
   Sutherland, J.

The exception was seasonable; the “return ” mentioned in the statute, Sec. 5019 C. L., is the return day.

Though by Section 5022, C. L., judgment of discontinuance for such neglect to justify is required to be rendered. Sec. 5023 gives a discretion to allow anew bond to be filed, with sureties who will justify.

On filing such bond, and the sureties justifying, if exoepted to, and on payment of the costs of this motion, including an :attorney fee of ten dollars, this motion to be denied.