Case ID: mich_61/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Campbell, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert L. Drew v. William R. Claypool.
    
      Circuit court attachment — Return of writ without personal service — Premature if made prior to return-day — Judgment not supported, thereby.
    
    A circuit court writ of attachment was returned three days before the return-day, without personal service on the defendant, who was published in and a judgment rendered against him.
    
      Held, that the return was premature, and the judgment must be reversed.
    Error to Berrien. (Smith, J7)
    Argued April 20, 1886.
    Decided April 29, 1886.
    Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
    Eeversed.
    The’ facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Clapp da Bridgman, for appellant.
    
      David E. Ilinman, for plaintiff.
   Campbell, C. J.

In this case judgment by default was entered under a writ of attachment returnable April'T, 1885, and returned “Not found,” April4, 1885.

It is assigned as error that this return was premature, and not good in support of the judgment. This has been so often decided that no discussion is needed.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred. 
      
      A justice of the peace has power, under the statute of amendments, to permit an officer to amend his return to a writ of attachment by showing when, it was in fact made and the writ and return filed with the justice. Kidd v. Dougherty, 59 Mich. 210 (head-note 2).
      A sheriff, in his return to a writ of attachment issued January 18 and returnable February 5, certified to the seizure of property on the teste day, and that he was unable to find the defendant, and returned and filed the writ and return on the return-day.
      
        Held, that the return was not premature; that the certificate of his inability to find the defendant had no reference to the date of the seizure, but took effect from the date of filing. Hitchcock v. Hahn, 60 Mich. 459 (head-note 1).