History
  • No items yet
midpage
Holmes v. Cole
95 Mich. 272
Mich.
1893
Check Treatment
. McGrath, J.

This suit was commenced in justice’s court, heard on certiorari in the circuit, where judgment for plaintiff was affirmed, and defendant brings the case here by writ of error.

The docket of the justice shows that the summons was-issued January 12, returnable January 20, and that judgment was rendered January 10.

The docket entry must control, and cannot be contradicted by the return to the writ. Parol proof is inad7 missible to vary or explain a justice’s docket so as to give him jurisdiction that does not appear on its face. Mudge v. Yaples, 58 Mich. 307; Weaver v. Lammon, 62 Id. 366; Toliver v. Brownell, 94 Id. 577.

It is unnecessary to refer to other alleged defects in the docket entries.

The judgment is reversed, with costs of both courts to defendant.

Long and Grant, JJ.,, concurred. Hooker, O. J., and Montgomery, J., did not sit.

Case Details

Case Name: Holmes v. Cole
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 7, 1893
Citation: 95 Mich. 272
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.