
    David Smith v. John Ihling.
    
      Issue of justice’s summons on legal holiday is mlid.
    
    Issue of justice’s summons is a mere ministerial act and valid though! done on a legal holiday.
    Error to Yan Burén.
    Submitted January 19.
    Decided January 25.
    Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
    Reversed.
    
      Armdble <& Fitch for plaintiff in error.
    The Holiday Act (Comp. L. § 5682) merely forbids such legal proceedings as necessitate holding court: Hemmens v. Bentley 32 Mich. 89; Hamilton v. People 29 Mich. 173; but the issue by a justice of a summons is ministerial: Cooley on Torts 378.
    
      George W. Lawton for defendant in error.
    Judgment cannot be signed on days that are dies non: Harrison v. Smith 9 B. & C. 243; nor process issued: Van Vechten v. Paddock 12 Johns. 178; Washington’s Birthday is on the same footing for business purposes as Sunday: Gladwin v. Lewis 6 Conn. 49: 16 Am. Dec. 33; School Dist. v. Gage 39 Mich. 484; and the issue of a summons is business within the statute: Comp. L. § 5682; Coleman v. Henderson 12 Am. Dec. 290; Littell’s Cases 171.
   Marston, J.

This action was commenced in justice’s court by issuing a summons on a legal holiday, February 22, 1881. On the return day, a motion was made to .quash the proceedings which was denied, a trial was then had and judgment for the plaintiff. The cause was then taken to the circuit on a special aj>peal and the judgment of the justice reversed. The case comes here on writ of error.

The circuit court erred. The issuing of summons is a ministerial act and is not forbidden by the statute.

The judgment of the circuit must be reversed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  