Case Name: William Slattery v. Wilbert Hilliker
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1878-10-31
Citations: 39 Mich. 573
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Slattery v. Wilbert Hilliker.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
William Slattery v. Wilbert Hilliker.
Service — Plea to the merits.
A defendant appeared and pleaded to the merits. The constable then amended his return so as to show that the service was had. Defendant did not ask leave to withdraw his plea, hut moved to dismiss, and his motion was properly denied, as his pleading to the merits raised an issue and made the question o£ service of-no importance.
Error to Lapeer.
Submitted Oct. 23.
Decided Oct. 31.
Eebleyin. Defendant brings error.
G. P. Thomas for plaintiff in error,
cited Wheeler v. Wilkins, 19 Mich., 78.
Geer & Williams for defendant in error.
Pleading to the merits brings defendant before the court whether lawfully served with process or not, and he cannot thereafter object to the manner in which he was brought in, Manhard v. Schott, 37 Mich., 234; Hart v. Blake, 31 Mich., 278; Pardee v. Smith, 27 Mich., 38; Crane v. Hardy, 1 Mich., 56; Baker v. Louisville R. R., 4 Bush, 623; Dempsey v. Paige, 4 E. D. Smith, 218; Wright v. Jeffrey, 5 Cow., 15; Pixley v. Winchell, 7 Cow., 366; Lowe v. Stringham, 14 Wis., 222; Swartwout v. Roddis, 5 Hill, 118; Malone v. Clark, 2 Hill, 657; Stewart v. Hill, 1 Mich., 265; Burson v. Huntington, 21 Mich., 415; Barker v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 24 Wis., 630; Baizer v. Lasch, 28 Wis., 268.

Opinion:
Cooley, J.
This case • originated in justice's court. The return of the constable to the process which commenced it, showed due service. The defendant appeared on the return day and pleaded to the merits. Subsequently the constable was permitted by the justice to amend his return, and he made such an amendment as showed the service to have been insufficient. The defendant thereupon moved to dismiss the cause, which motion was denied. The denial of this motion is the error now relied upon.
When the motion to dismiss was made, there was an issue on the merits, and no motion was made by defendant for leave to withdraw his plea. At that stage of the case it was of no importance whether the writ was or was not properly served. Stone v. Welling, 14 Mich., 514; Falkner v. Beers, 2 Doug. (Mich.), 117.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.