
    ROTHMAN vs. CIRCUIT JUDGE (Macomb),
    No. 11724.
   To compel the circuit judge to dismiss an appeal from Justice Court. ,

Granted February 10, 1891, with costs.

Nelator recovered judgment against one Child, on August 11, 1890. On August 18, 1890, Child presented to the justice an affidavit and bond on appeal. The justice made return to the Circuit Court. • On October 13,- 1890, relator’s attorneys entered a general appearance and on the same day entered a motion to dismiss the appeal because not taken within the statutory time. The court denied the motion, holding that the entry of appearance operated as a waiver.

Relator contended (1) that the failure to file the affidavit and bond on appeal within the time, was jurisdictional and could not be waived, citing Smart vs. Howe, 3 M., 590; Moore vs. Ellis, 18 M., 77; Canal Co. vs. Haas, 20 M., 326; Dale vs. Lavigne, 31 M., 148; Franks vs. Smith, 45 M., 326. (2) That the appearance and motion should be construed together, citing Wiley vs. Circuit Judge, 29 M., 486 (No. 203); Michaels vs. Stork, 44 M., 2; Franks vs. Smith, 45 M., 326; U. S. vs. Yates, 6 How. (U. S.), 605; Dow vs. Gibbony, 3 Hughes, 382; Reinstadler vs. Reeves, 33 Fed. Rep., 308; Cruger vs. R. R. Co., 2 Kern. (N. Y.), 190. As to whether mandamus is the proper remedy in such case, relator cited, Conrad vs. Freeland, 18 M., 255; Wiley vs. Circuit Judge, 29 M., 486 (No. 203); Detroit & B. P. R. Co. vs. Circuit Judge, 27 M., 303 (171); Comstock vs. Circuit Judge, 30 M., 98 (170); Miller vs. Circuit Judge, 41 M., 326 (116); Stevenson vs. Circuit Judge, 44 M., 162 (202); Franks vs. Smith, 45 M., 326; Ellair vs. Circuit Judge, 46 M., 496 (No. 146); Hamilton vs. Circuit Judge, 52 M., 409 (172); Daniels vs. Circuit Judge, 60 M., 219 (152); King vs. Circuit Judge, 69 M., 84 (138); Brady vs. R. R. Co., 73 M., 457.  