Case Name: LEMON v. HAMPTON
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1901-07-19
Citations: 128 Mich. 182
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEMON v. HAMPTON.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
LEMON v. HAMPTON.
Justices oe the Peace — Short Summons — Service—Jurisdiction.
Under 1 Comp. Laws, § 718, requiring a justice’s short summons to be made returnable not less than two days from its. date, and to he served “at least two days before the time of appearance mentioned therein,” the issue and service on the. 7th of the month, of a summons returnable on the 10th, is-sufficient to confer jurisdiction, though one of the intervening days is Sunday; since, while Sunday is to be excluded in the computation, the appearance day should be included Everts v. Fish, 44 Mich. 515, disapproved.
Error to Kalamazoo; Adams, J.
Submitted June 24, 1901.
Decided July 19, 1901.
Assumpsit in justice’s court by Robert Lemon against Caleb Hampton. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant removed the cause to the circuit by certiorari, where the judgment was reversed. Plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Frost & Jackson, for appellant.
Jesse B. Cropsey, for appellee.

Opinion:
Moore, J.
The sole question involved in this case is whether a summons issued from justice's court against a nonresident on the 7th day of the month, and served upon the same day, and returnable on the 10th day of the month, one of the intervening days being Sunday, confers jurisdiction upon the justice to render a valid judgment. Counsel for plaintiff insist that it does, citing Chaddock v. Barry, 93 Mich. 542 (53 N. W. 785, 18 L. R. A. 337), and Crozier v. Allen, 117 Mich. 171 (75 N. W. 300); while counsel for defendant insists the precise question was passed upon in Everts v. Fisk, 44 Mich. 515 (7 N. W. 81), where it was held such a service of a short summons was void. See Sallee v. Ireland, 9 Mich. 154; In re Powers' Appeal, 29 Mich. 504; Tiffany, Justice's Guide (5th Ed.), 32. We think the case is ruled by Chaddock v. Barry and Crozier v. Allen, which, in effect, overrule the earlier cases.
Judgment reversed, and judgment in justice's court affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.