Case Name: Michael Harrison v. Joseph Sager
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1873-10-07
Citations: 28 Mich. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Harrison v. Joseph Sager.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Michael Harrison v. Joseph Sager.
Practice: Costs. This court, having reversed the judgment of the circuit court on an appeal from a justice’s court, on the ground that the circuit never acquired jurisdiction, for the reason that the judgment of the justice was void and therefore not appealable, refused costs of the circuit to the plaintiff in error, in whose favor the defective judgment of the justice was rendered.
Heard and decided October 7.
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
Motion for costs of the circuit.
Sager sued Harrison in justice’s court. The cause was tried and submitted, and the justice took five days to consider and then rendered judgment for defendant. Sager appealed to the circuit, where defendant moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the justice had lost jurisdiction before he rendered judgment, and that therefore the circuit did not obtain jurisdiction through the appeal. This motion was denied, and the parties proceeded to trial on the merits, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon brought the case to this court on error, alleging as error, among other things, the denial of his motion to dismiss. This court, holding this error well assigned, reversed the judgment of the circuit on that ground (see 27 Mich., 476), with costs of .the supreme court, but .not ordering a new trial.
O. T. Tuthill, for plaintiff in error,
moves for an amendment of the judgment of this court so as to give him costs of the circuit.
Edwards £ Sherwood, contra.

Opinion:
The Court
denied the motion. The defect at which, the objection of plaintiff in error was aimed in the court below, and which deprived the circuit of jurisdiction, was one in the judgment of the justice, which was in his own favor; and one ought not to be allowed costs of proceedings had in affirmance of the validity of his own judgment, and which are subsequently held erroneous only because of an infirmity in that judgment.