O'DONNELL v. ST. CLAIR CIRCUIT JUDGE

O’DONNELL v. ST. CLAIR CIRCUIT JUDGE. Equity — Chancery Practice — Answer—Signature. An answer in the nature of a cross-bill need not be signed by the defendant personally when answer on oath is waived in ' the bill, signature by solicitor being sufficient. Chancery Rules la and lOe. Petition by Cornelius O’Donnell for an order requiring Harvey Tappan, circuit judge of St. Clair county, to show cause why mandamus should not issue compelling him to strike from the files an answer to a bill of complaint. Submitted November 19, 1906. (Calendar No. 22,000½.) Petition denied November 24, 1906. A. E. Chadwick, for relator. [MAJORITY — Per Cüriam.] Per Cüriam. The application for an order to show cause is denied, for the reason that an answer need not be signed by the defendant personally when answer upon oath is waived in the bill. It is sufficient if it be signed by his solicitor. See Chancery Rule 10, subd. e. The fact that the answer is one in the nature of a cross-bill is unimportant, as a similar practice prevails as to bills of complaint. Chancery Rule 1, subd. a. Eveland v. Stephenson, 45 Mich. 396. It is not to be inferred from this determination that mandamus would be the appropriate remedy if relator had a grievance. That question we do not decide.