Case Name: John Roskopp v. Arthur L. Canfield, Circuit Judge of Macomb County
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1893-11-15
Citations: 97 Mich. 628
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Roskopp v. Arthur L. Canfield, Circuit Judge of Macomb County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 628–630

Head Matter:
John Roskopp v. Arthur L. Canfield, Circuit Judge of Macomb County.
Attachment — Dissolution—Appeal—Notice of trial.
Notice of trial of an appeal from an order dissolving a circuit court writ of attachment is properly served upon the attorneys of record for the plaintiff in the attachment suit, who appeared and defended for the appellant in the dissolution proceeding, and one of whom made the affidavit for appeal, in which he stated that he was one of the attorneys for the appellant in said proceeding, and made the affidavit for and in his behalf.
Mandamus.
Argued. November 14, 1893.
Denied November 15, 1893.
Relator commenced a suit by attachment in the circuit court for Macomb county. The attachment was dissolved by a circuit court commissioner, and relator appealed. The attorneys of record for relator in the attachment suit appeared and defended in the dissolution proceeding, and one of them made the affidavit for appeal, which stated that he was one of the attornej^s for the relator in said proceeding, and made the affidavit for and in his behalf. Notice of trial of the appeal was served upon said attorneys, who moved to strike the case from the calendar on the ground' that such service was unauthorized, as the appellant had not appeared by attorney in said appeal case, and no notice of trial had been served upon him in conformity -with the rules and practice of the court. The motion was denied, and relator applied for mandamus to compel the respondent to grant the motion.
Limgerhausen & Erskine, for relator, contended:
1. The service of notice of trial upon the attorneys who appeared before the commissioner was unauthorized; citing Clark v. McGregor, 55 Mich. 413.
3. Relator had not appeared by attorney in the appeal case, and was in the city, and personal servide could have been had upon him if desired, as required by Circuit Court Rule No. 10, as amended October 8, 1891, which provides that “in cases of appeal, and in all cases commenced in the circuit court, where the party upon whom notice is sought to be served has not appeared by attorney, service shall be made on such party if he is a resident of the State, and his place of residence can be ascertained.”
Eldredge & Spier, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The writ will be denied. Where the attorneys of record for the plaintiff in an attachment suit in the circuit court appear and defend in a proceeding before a circuit court commissioner to dissolve the attachment, and' one of them makes the affidavit for appeal from the order of dissolution, in which he states that he is one o£ the attorneys.for the appellant in said proceeding, notice of trial of the appeal is properly served upon said attorneys.