Case Name: William S. Maynard v. Ebenezer J. Penniman
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1859-11-02
Citations: 7 Mich. 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: William S. Maynard v. Ebenezer J. Penniman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
William S. Maynard v. Ebenezer J. Penniman.
No agent íot the service of papers can bo recognized' under the rules, unless residing at Detroit or Lansing.
When notices are served upon the agent of an attorney, the distance of the attorney’s residence from the place of holding the court will determine the time for which notice must bo given, and not the distance of the agent’s residence from the court.
Heard November 1st.
Decided November 2d.
Error to Washtenaw Circuit.
D. G. JEEoTbroola moved to dismiss the writ of error for want, of prosecution. The affidavit of service of notice of motion stated that Mr. Hawkins, the attorney for plaintiff in error, had removed from the state to Chicago, and that the notice was served upon Mr. Barry at Ann Arbor “ who is and was duly appointed as the agent of said Hawkins to receive said notice.” Only a four days notice was given.
T. 8. JBlackmar, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court:
We can recognize no agent for the purpose of the service of papers, unless residing at Detroit or Lansing.
Besides, the time for which notice was given in this case was insufficient. It is the residence of the attorney, and not that of the agent, which determines the time for which notice must be given. Rule twenty - six requires a ten days notice where the attorney resides over a hundred miles from the place of hearing, and that should have been given in this case, whether served on an agent or personally.
Motion denied.