Case ID: mich_8/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Manning J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John M. Wattles v. John Warren and another.
    ’The County Courts, as they existed in 1S48, had jurisdiction of actions of ejectment.
    ’The general statute regulating proceedings in ejectment, was applicable to tho County Courts, except so far as the proceedings marked out by it were inconsistent with the summary proceedings prescribed for the County Courts.
    
      Heard April 4th.
    
    
      Decided April 11th.
    
    Error to Lapeer Circuit.
    
      The action was ejectment, originally brought in the County Court of Lapeer county, April 21st, 1848, and from thence, after judgment for the defendants, removed to the Circuit Court by certiorari, November 23d, 1848, where the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.
    The position taken in this court, was that the County Courts had no jurisdiction of actions of ejectment; the statute attempting to confer it not prescribing any mode of proceeding by which the jurisdiction could be exercised*
    
      11. Wisner, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. JRomeyn, for defendants in error.
   Manning J.:

We have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the County Court. The statute is.clear on that point: — S. L., 1848, p. 263, §§ 4 and 5. And to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction, it was not necessary the statute giving it .should regulate the mode of procedure. The statute relative to actions of ejectment (Comp. L., p. 1229), is general in its character, and was therefore applicable to the County Courts, except so far as the proceedings marked out by it Avere inconsistent with the summary proceedings prescribed by statute for the County Courts.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.