SUMMARY JUDGMENTS

A bill to revise procedure on summary judgments as reported by this committee of last year failed to pass. We believe it should be re-introduced and fully expect that when understood it will be adopted without opposition.

JOINT MEETING OF BENCH AND BAR

In conformity with the sentiment of the 1922 annual meeting, the committee prepared a bill to promote a joint meeting of the State Bar Association and the Circuit Judges Association (House Bill 12, File 11). This was to be accomplished by permitting the presiding judge to designate the time and place of the annual judge's meeting. It was expected that this decision would be reached after conference with the President of this Bar Association, whereupon at least one joint formal session could be held. This bill failed to pass, the main argument against it being that nothing should be done to facilitate the commingling of Judges and practicing attorneys; however, the program was favorably received by judges and attorneys with the result that tomorrow evening we are to be honored by the presence of the Circuit Judges at our banquet to be held after the conclusion of the Circuit Judges' Association at Lansing. It is confidently hoped that this will shortly lead to the passage of an act whereby regular joint meetings may be had for a part of the session of each association.

INCORPORATION OF THE BAR

A bill for this purpose prepared after the most careful study by a special committee failed to pass. The purposes and objections to it are to be presented elsewhere on this program.

OTHER LEGISLATION

A large number of other statutes of considerable concern to the profession were passed, but which did not originate with the association. Two of these should be noted.

The 1923 legislature reenacted a former statute (Act 172 of 1917) but repealed two years later (Act 14 of 1919) limiting writs of error to cases involving $500 or more. The new Act however,

has a peculiar proviso "That if said case involves a construction of the constitution or any statutes of this state or any matter of great public importance or involves the contest of a will, such application need only show said fact" (Act 55 of 1923).

A real innovation in Michigan is Act 36 of 1923, which in the discretion of the judge where a trial is likely to be protracted, permits the empaneling of 14 Jurors who shall hear the case but before retiring to their deliberations the number shall, by lot, be reduced to the common law number of 12.

The Judicature Act was amended in several particulars but inasmuch as the bound volumes of 1923 Public Acts will shortly be accessible we refrain from further details.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

It begins to look as though the theory of Declaratory Judgments, which was first promulgated in this country by Professor Sunderland is to receive widespread acceptance as a most practical method of modernizing court procedure. The Michigan statute of 1917, the first in America, was declared unconstitutional, by our state court. But notwithstanding that decision, other states, notably New York, New Jersey, Kansas, Colorado, Florida and Connecticut have passed such measures and there is now pending before Congress a Federal Act for the same purpose, drawn by the American Bar Association and which endorsed at the annual meeting of that association held last week. This bill seems to meet the objection raised to the Michigan Act. We may well be proud of the fact that this noteworthy advance is traceable to our worthy Secretary. We recommend that the incoming committee be instructed to submit to the next session of the legislature bill designed to permit declaratory judgments modified as may be necessary to meet the defects in the former act.

WAITING PERIOD BEFORE MARRIAGE CEREMONY

We again call attention to the desirability of some measure to promote permanency of wedlock. In the belief that a check upon hasty marriages would be of some aid along this line, a former committee recommended such a measure in 1920. A bill requiring a 5-day delay, after issuance of the license, before the ceremony

could be performed, with suitable discretionary power in the Probate Judge for waiving that period, failed to pass the 1921 legislature. The measure was taken over by the Michigan State Conference of Social Workers, but its form was so changed in requiring a physician's certificate that the 1923 legislature gave it no serious. consideration. Your committee believes that this organization owes to the public a duty to actively support the original program separate and apart from any eugenic certificates, leaving such proposals for others in independent statutes.

APPEALS BY THE STATE IN CRIMINAL CASES

It is not overstating the fact to say that under the present practice the public has too few rights in criminal prosecutions. With all constitutional safeguards to accused, we believe that the right of appeal by the state should be materially broadened.

ABOLITION OF WRITS OF ERROR

The American Bar Association has vigorously urged before Congress a bill to abolish writs of error, permitting an appeal in all cases where relief would formerly be by such a writ. In this state a writ of error is a useless fossil and, we believe should be done away with, granting an appeal in place thereof.

PLAN OF WORK

We believe that the working methods of this committee should be materially altered, that except in emergencies definite draft bills should be submitted to the association, and that they should be furnished in printed form to the members in advance of the meeting, for only thus can proper consideration and helpful discussion be had. Such submission could be in pamphlet form or by way of the Bar Journal. Such a course not being practical for this session and the next session of the legislature not occurring until 1925, we have refrained from here presenting any particular drafts but hope that you will instruct the incoming committee to prepare and submit drafts on all of the subjects here recommended. This course follows the example of the American Bar Association where it has been a marked success.

26*

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE MICHIGAN
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,

TW

SEPTEMBER 8, 1923

BY EDSON R. SUNDERLAND

WO years ago, at Flint, the Michigan State Bar Association decided to publish the Michigan State Bar Journal as its official organ, with a view to making the Association a more active factor in serving the legal profession of the State. The chief obstacle to such an enterprise was seen to be the labor involved in editing the Journal. The task was one which a lawyer engaged in active practice could hardly undertake. It was thought, however, that the facilities of the Law School at Ann Arbor might be available for the purpose, and it was proposed to make the secretary of the association editor of the Bar Journal and to secure a member of the Law School faculty to serve in the double capacity of secretary and editor. This plan was approved by the representatives of the Law School who attended the Flint meeting, and the present secretary was elected to carry out the plan.

At the time when the publication of the Journal was determined upon, the financial condition of the association was very weak. It had no assets and carried a liability of $300 for money borrowed for running expenses. The dues were raised from $2.00 to $5.00 per year to take care of the Journal, and it was hoped that enough members would retain their connection with the Association at the higher rate to put it in a solvent condition. The event has fully justified the hopes of those who advocated the publication of the Journal.

When the Journal was started the nominal membership roll showed 867 names, though a considerable number of these were in arrears for their dues. During the first year of the Journal 25 members resigned, 9 died, and 34 new members joined. The increase and decrease thus exactly balanced, but at the end of the year 94 names were dropped for non-payment of dues, showing a total net loss for the year of 94 out of 867. This was a far better showing than anyone had dared to hope for. It enabled the secretary's books to show total receipts of about $3,750.00. Out of this the old debt was paid, the entire cost of the Journal, the general

i

expenses of the Association and the expense of the Annual Meeting at Saginaw, were paid, and a net credit balance of about $600.00 remained in the Association's treasury.

This showing was made possible only by the generous assistance given by the Michigan Law Review Association which publishes the Michigan Law Review. It agreed to allow the Journal to carry each month, as a supplement, the entire current number of the Michigan Law Review, charging nothing for editorial work, office overhead or typesetting and make-up, but giving the Journal free use of its plates for running off reprints. It also agreed to cancel all subscriptions which it had received from members of the Michigan State Bar Association and to transfer to the Bar Association all subscription money received by it on account of such subscriptions, on the sole condition that the Bar Association compensate it for actual damages suffered through loss of such subscribers. This enabled the Bar Association to relieve its members of the expense of paying for duplicate copies of the Michigan. Law Review. The actual damages paid to the Law Review Association on account of loss of subscribers was only $94.25.

The total direct cost to the Bar Association of the State Bar Journal for the first year was about $2,100. If it had published the entire issues, including the full Law Review reprints, as original material, the cost would have been about $5,600 exclusive of editorial work, so that the contribution of the Law Review Association was worth to the Bar Association about $3,500.

During the second year of the Journal the membership of the Association has more than made up the loss suffered when the dues were raised. Five members have resigned, I have died, and 125 new members have joined. Most of these new members were obtained through the personal efforts of the president, Mr. George E. Nichols, who has devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to the Bar Association. Our total membership now stands at 882, the largest number in its history. Receipts during the year have been about $3,900. The cost of the State Bar Journal, under a slightly modified contract with the Law Review Association, and in enlarged form, has been about $2,600. General expenses, including the Annual Meeting at Grand Rapids, ought to leave the Association with a net credit balance of six or eight hundred dollars.

It seems that our two years' experience with the Journal has