Michigan Court of Chancery, 1842

Ingersoll v. Kirby

Ingersoll v. Kirby
Michigan Court of Chancery · Decided June 15, 1842
1 Walk. Ch. 27

Counsel

D. Goodwin, in support of the motion., A. W. Buel, contra.

Ingersoll v. Kirby

Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The day of the month and not of the week must govern, when they fall on different days, as in the present case ; and the summons was not served in season for the seventh of December, the rule requiring at least two days’ service. If the mistake had been in naming the day of the week, that part of the summons might be rejected as surplusage, and the summons stillbe good, unless the party had been misled by it.

Motion granted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.