Case Name: Charles B. Fessenden, v. Samuel W. Hill
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1859-01-12
Citations: 6 Mich. 242
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles B. Fessenden, v. Samuel W. Hill.
Judges: Manning J. did not sit in this case.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
Charles B. Fessenden, v. Samuel W. Hill.
The affidavit for attachment under chapter 140 of the Compiled Laws ¡must be mad© on the day on which tho writ issues.
"Whero, on writ of error, an objection is taken which, goes to tho-jurisdiction of fcli© court below, and is fatal to the judgment brought up for review,- the Court will not pass upon the other questions mado upon the record.
Heard and Decided January 12th.
Error to the District Court for the Upper Peninsula.
Hill commenced suit against Fessenden in the District Court of the Upper Peninsula, for the county of Houghton, by attachment. The affidavit for attachment, based upon the non-residence of a defendant, was made February 23d, 1857, and the writ issued thereon bore date two days thereafter. Property was attached by virtue of this writ, but Fessenden was not personally served, and did not appear in the cause-Judgment having passed against him by default, he brought the case to this Court by writ of error, alleging several grounds of error.
G. I. Walker, for plaintiff in error,
stated that there were several questions of inqportance presented by the record, which it was desirable to have settled, if the Court would hear and jiass upon them.
There was no appearance for defendant in error.

Opinion:
The Chiee Justice:
The affidavit in this case having been made two days before the writ issued, the judgment can not be supported, — Wilson v. Arnold, 5 Mich. 98. This point being decisive of the case, we do not think it proper for us to hear an argument upon the other questions raised, and give opinions upon them.
Judgment reversed.
Manning J. did not sit in this case.