Case Name: John M. Hart v. Township of Port Huron
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1881-06-29
Citations: 46 Mich. 428
Docket Number: 
Parties: John M. Hart v. Township of Port Huron.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
John M. Hart v. Township of Port Huron.
Justices’ com'ts — Suit Try municipality — Qertiora/ri—Official title.
A justice of the peace can hear a suit brought by a municipal corporation.
The objection that the evidence introduced in support of a claim is not the best evidence cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.
On certiorari all objections that are not to the merits must be disregarded. Comp. L. § 5477.
Omission to sue a municipal officer by his official title is not a substantial objection if his liability is shown.
Error to St. Clair.
Submitted June 22.
Decided June 29.
Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Phillips & Vance for plaintiff in error.
Charles K. Dodge for defendant in error.
Corporations can sue in all courts: Const, art. xv. § 11; Potter’s Law of Corporations, §§ 83-4; and this includes municipal corporations : Comp. L. § 5296; townships are municipal corporations: Const, art. xi. § 2; and may sue in justice’s court: Gurney v. Mayor of St. Clair 11 Mich.. 203; where the return to a writ of eertiorari raises no law questions the higher court has no right to review the proceedings on the weight of testimony: McGraw v. Schwab 23 Mich. 13; Overpack v. Ruggles 27 Mich. 67; Jackson v. People 9 Mich. 112.

Opinion:
Campbell, J.
Hart was sued before' a justice of the peace of St. Clair county for the amount of a small judgment collected by his deputy (he being sheriff) and not paid over. Having moved to quash for want of jurisdiction of the justice to entertain a suit by a municipal corporation, the motion was denied. He then pleaded, but subsequently got leave to withdraw his plea, and the case was tried, and ¡judgment rendered for tbe township. Hart made no objection to testimony and allowed tbe case to go to judgment, and tben sued out a certiorari to tbe circuit court, where tbe judgment was affirmed. He now brings error.
Tbe objection to jurisdiction is not urged, and is not maintainable. Upon all tbe points in issue there appears to have been evidence, and tbe objection that it was not tbe best evidence can hardly be raised now, when tbe defendant deliberately abstained from objecting. Some technical-points which do not relate to tbe merits we need not notice, as on such writs the statute requires all objections not going to tbe merits to be disregarded. The principal one of these seems, to have been that tbe defendant was not sued by bis name of office. But bis liability being shown this was not a substantial objection.
Tbe judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.