Case Name: The People on the relation of Robert J. Hackett v. The Judge of the Wayne Circuit
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1877-04-18
Citations: 36 Mich. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People on the relation of Robert J. Hackett v. The Judge of the Wayne Circuit.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
The People on the relation of Robert J. Hackett v. The Judge of the Wayne Circuit.
Affidavit for capias: Statement of facts and circumstances. An affidavit for capias should set forth in detail the facts and circumstances, and not mere conclusions upon information and belief, so that when presented to an officer to fix bail, he can exercise some judgment based upon the facts, and not the conclusions merely of the affiant.
Heard April 17.
Decided April 18.
Application, for Mandamus.
This is an application to require respondent to vacate an order granted by him, vacating an order of the circuit court commissioner, holding to bail one Hervey S. Dale upon a capias ad respondendum, wherein relator was plaintiff. The ■question raised relates to the sufficiency of the affidavit, which reads as follows:
“ Bobert J. Hackett, being duly sworn, deposes and says he has, as he has good reason to believe, a just cause of action against Hervey S. Dale for wrongfully converting and disposing of the undivided one-half of the following property, to wit: two oxen and eight horses, of the property of this deponent, of the value of one thousand dollars.
“And this deponent further says that he has, as he has .good reason to believe, a good cause of action against said Hervey S. Dale, for the unlawfully drawing from the United ■States and converting to his own use, twenty thousand dollars upon certain contracts between said Dale and the United States, after the same had been assigned to deponent for a valuable consideration paid by deponent to said Dale, and after he, the said Dale, had given deponent a power of attorney, made by its terms irrevocable, to draw the same, the same being the property of deponent, as the said Dale well knew.”
Atkinson & Atkinson, for relator.
D. O. Holbrook, for respondent.

Opinion:
Marston, J:
Within the principles of previous decisions of this court, we are of opinion that a party should not be deprived of his personal liberty upon an affidavit which merely states 'conclusions upon information and belief. The facts and circumstances should be set forth in detail, so that when presented to an officer to fix hail, he can exercise some judgment based upcm the facts, and not the conclusions of the affiant merely. A creditor may think he has good reason to believe that he has a cause of action against another, when if the facts were fully set forth, it might appear otherwise.—Const., Art. VI, § 26; Josselyn v. McAllister, 25 Mich., 45; Matter of Stephenson, 32 Mich., 60.
The writ must be denied, with costs.
The other Justices concurred.