Case ID: mich_50/html/0054-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marston, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wm. D. Hagar and Wesley L. Jukes v. William C. Coup.
    
      Jurisdiction of municipal cowrt — Non-rmdence.
    The Superior Court oí Detroit has no jurisdiction unless at least one of the parties is a resident of the city. Act 97 of 1879.
    The right to sue out a writ of error should be contested upon a motion to dismiss the writ, supported by proper showing.
    Error to Superior Court of Detroit.
    Jan. 10.
    Jan. 18.
    Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
    Reversed.
    
      George S. Hosmer (Griffin, Dickinson, Thurber & Hosmer) for appellant.
    Where residence is jurisdictional it must be averred in the pleadings: Turner v. Bank of North 
      
      America 4 Dal. 11; Bingham v. Cabot 3 Dal. 382 ; Emory v. Grenough id. 369; Turner v. Enrille 4 Dal. 7; Mossman v. Higginson id. 12; Abercrombie v. Dupuis 1 Cr. 343; Course v. Stead 4 Dal. 22; Wood v. Wagnon 2 Or. 9; Capron v. Van Hoorden id. 126; Hodgson v. Bowerbank 5 Cr. 303; Montalet v. Murray 4 Cr. 46 ; Sullivan v. Fulton Steamboat Co. 6 Wh. 450; Jackson v. Twentyman 2 Pet. 136; Morgan v. Callender 4 Cr. 370; Brown v. Keene 8 Pet. 112; Dred Scott v. Sandford 19 How. 402; the averment cannot be waived, for consent does not give jurisdiction: Jackson v. Ashton 8 Pet. 148; Exp. Schollenberger 96 U. S. 377; see Hornthall v. Collector 9 Wal. 560; Mason v. Rollins 13 Wal. 602; Exp. Smith 94 U. S. 455.
    
      Henry M. Cheever for appellee.
    Michigan cases in which judgment has been held void for want of a showing of jurisdiction on the face of the pleadings are cases in which judgment was taken by default: Outhwite v. Porter 13 Mich. 533; McEwan v. Zimmer 38 Mich. 765 ; Booth v. Conn. Mut. life Ins. Co. 43 Mich. 299; Bagley v. Pridgeon 42 Mich. 550; Atkins v. Borstler 46 Mich. 552; where both parties are residents of the State one of them must live in the county where suit is brought: Turrill v. Walker 4 Mich. 179; Haywood v. Johnson 41 Mich. 598.
   Marston, J.

¥e are of opinion that under the Act of 1879 and the case of Bagley v. Pridgeon 42 Mich. 551, residence of at least one of the parties in the city of Detroit is essential to confer jurisdiction upon the Superior Court, and that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction where none is given by the statute. Any other view would enable parties, if so disposed, to submit to and bring into that court all classes of personal actions from any part of the State.-

If the appellees disputed the right of counsel to sue out the writ of error in this case, they should on motion and a proper showing have moved to dismiss the writ.

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

The other Justices concurred.