USA > Michigan > Bench and bar of Michigan : a volume of history and biography > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35
25
386
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN,
and energies have uniformly been actively employed in the promotion and conservation of the forces and influences in society which conduce to respect for law and order. It is probable no man in Michigan has accom- plished more in this direction than Judge Grant. He was married June 13, 1863, to Caroline L. Felch, eldest daughter of ex-Governor Alpheus Felch, of Ann Arbor. Their family consists of four daughters, namely, Mary Florence, wife of James Pendill, of Marquette; Helen T., Emma and Virginia C. Grant. The family is connected with the Episcopal Church.
ROBERT M. MONTGOMERY, Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Robert M. Montgomery was born in Eaton Rapids, Michigan, May 12, 1849. Ilis father, Johnson Montgomery, was a native of New York and of Irish descent. His mother, Elvira Dudley, was a native of Ver- mont and of New England ancestry. The family settled in Eaton Rapids as pioneers, in 1837. Until eighteen years of age Robert attended " the public schools of his native town, although he had begun teaching dur- ing the winter terms, at the early age of sixteen and continued until twenty- one. He never matriculated in any college or received the benefits of a classical education. Hle begun the study of law in the office of F. J. Russell when nineteen years of age and remained with him until he attained his majority. He was admitted to the Bar in July, 1870, and immediately entered upon the practice of law in Pentwater, where he remained until 1877. He then removed to Grand Rapids and resided there until the law required his residence in Lansing as a Justice of the Supreme Court. The offices to which he has been chosen have all been in the line of his profession. While a resident of Pentwater he was prosecut- ing attorney of Oceana county for two terms. After his removal to Grand Rapids he was appointed assistant United States district attorney, a position which he held until September, 1881. In the April election of that year he was chosen Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit and was afterwards re-elected for a second term. In 1888 he resigned the judicial office and resumed private practice in Grand Rapids as a member of the firm of Montgomery & Bundy. The only reason for leaving the Circuit Bench at the time was a financial one. The practice was more lucrative than the office. His duty to make larger provision for his family appeared to be paramount. Ile therefore continued as a member of the firm mentioned until his assumption of the duties of Judge of the Supreme Court, to which he was elected in the spring of 1891. He was the candi- date of the Republican party and received 163,211 votes to 148,271 for Judge John W. Champlin, Democrat, 14, 144 for A. Dodge, Prohibition, and 9,260 for O'Brien J. Atkinson, Populist. He was married in 1873 to Theodosia Wadsworth of Pentwater. Their family consists of two sons,
i
1
.
The Century Publishing & Engraving to Queago.
1
387
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
aged respectively, twenty-one and eighteen years (1896). Both of them are still in school. Judge Montgomery was, at a very early age, elected to the Bench of Michigan's highest nisi prius Court, after a brief and successful career as a general practitioner and prosecuting attorney. The characteristics of mind which have been manifested by him in his work, not only as the assistant United States attorney, but also in his civil practice; his candor and fair- ness, his devotion to the right, his unimpeachable integrity and strength of legal judgment, made him a candidate for the Circuit Judgeship, without solicitation on his part. In that position he served the people of the State for seven years. It is not too much to say that he won at once and
maintained while on the Bench the universal respect of the Bar and liti- gants who had occasion to appear before him. As a judge, he was exceedingly painstaking. On any doubtful question he invariably sup- plemented the briefs and arguments of counsel by the most rigid exami- nation of the law of the case before him, by a thorough search of the
authorities and in the light of his own reason. He. was prompt in his rulings and almost uniformly correct ; while he was careful to see that the merits and justice of the case should neither be obscured nor defeated by objections or irregularities that were closely technical and technical only. llis instructions to the jury were usually prepared in writing and with great care. The old files of his law office today disclose hundreds of such charges, many of which are very valuable and useful briefs in cases involving the questions which called out the instructions. Judge Mont- gomery grew, both as a lawyer and a judicial officer, during his whole experience upon the Bench, so that when he stepped down from the office he had fairly earned the respect of the profession and the public, and his resignation occasioned a genuine regret to the community. If, when he returned to the Bar, any of his associates had apprehensions as to the wis- dom of his course it was not because they doubted his legal ability or learning, but because the prevailing impression that a judicial career tends to unfit one for advocacy and active practice may not have been entirely absent in this instance. If any such impression existed, however, it was very soon dispelled. He returned to the Bar, ripened and broadened by his experience on the Bench. He had been through all his judicial career a student, expending energies as laboriously upon the law and merits of a controversy before him as did the lawyers employed in the case. With the added incentive of personal relations with his clients and a desire to prevail in establishing what he deemed to be their rights, he allowed no interest to interfere with his undivided duty as an advocate. He believed in the justness of a cause which he championed and his habit of looking at all sides of a question or controversy made him unusually safe as an adviser and unusually fair as an advocate. He was stubborn in opinion, without arrogance. He was persistent in the investigation of fact or law, without the fault of "working a case to death." He was never guilty of over-try- ing a case of uselessly consuming the time of court, jury or litigants.
388
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
Endowed with a most remarkable memory of cases, not only as to their titles and the volume and page in which they were reported, but also as to the exact points involved and decided, he was unusually expeditious in preparing his authorities and informing the court thereon. With clients he was frank and firm. His opinions on the merits of their controversies were never doubtfully expressed to them and at the same time he was always a persistent and a loyal partisan when his mind was made up on the merits of a controversy and the lines to be pursued. He had not the studied or superficial graces of an orator; his mind was not markedly gifted in imagery or sentiment; but his arguments upon questions of fact were strongly stated, and he was accustomed to dwell upon a point which he desired to make clear until he felt assured that the jury was at least fully possessed of his own opinion. His work as a Justice of the Supreme Court must be judged by its expression in the official reports. The readers of this volume are generally students of those reports. Those which he has written are marked by directness and perspicuity. There is in them no extra verbiage-no surplusage. He makes his points so clear that a layman can understand them, and the reasoning by which he reaches a conclusion is easily followed. It is sufficient to say that his promotion to the Supreme Bench was fully merited and the people of the State have not seen cause to regret the elevation to its highest tribunal of so able and so just a judge, as a successor of Cooley and Campbell.
FRANK A. HOOKER, Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Frank A. Ilooker was born in Hartford, Connecticut, January 16, 1844. His father, James Sedgewick Hooker, was also a native of Hartford county, which indeed has been the home of the family for two and a half centuries. He is a lineal descendant, in the seventh generation, of Rev. Thomas Hooker, the founder of Hartford, Connecticut, a man of original power and resources, who is credited in history with the origination of the doctrine that, "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This theory was first enunciated in his sermon's when a con- stitution for the colony of Connecticut was under consideration, and found expression in that instrument, adopted in 1639, of which he was the responsible author and which was the first written constitution adopted for an American colony. It afforded the sound legal basis for the Declaration of Independence. It has been recognized in all of the existing political institutions of the United States. The next in line of direct descent from this ancestor was Rev. Samuel Hooker, who passed his life in the vicinity of Hartford; whose wife was Mary, daughter of Capt. Thomas Willett, the first mayor of New York. Samuel and Mary Willett Hooker were the progenitors of all the living descendants of Rev. Thomas Hooker, bearing that name. Rev. Samuel Hooker was a graduate of Harvard of
The Century Publishing & Engraving lo Chuvagy
sken
1
389
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
the class of 1653. Following the line of descent, his son, Daniel, a phy- sician of high repute, graduated from Harvard in 1700. He was the first tutor of Yale College and afterward became surgeon of the expedition against Canada in 1711; his grandson, Daniel, was also a physician, as were his great-grandson Daniel, and his great-great-grandson, Nathaniel. The last named was the grandfather of Judge Hooker, the subject of this biography. Judge Hooker's mother was Camilla Porter, a native of the State of New York, whose ancestors lived in Connecticut ; who was related by descent to the Grants, the Fields and the Porters, all well known families prominent in New England. On his father's side he is descended from the historic families of Eggleston, Sedgewick, Stanley and Webster. When he was twelve years of age he came west with his parents, who set- tled first in Maumee, Ohio, and removed thence soon afterward to Defiance. At the latter place he acquired his primary education in the public schools. When fourteen years old he learned the trade of brick mason and enlarged his education, preliminary to that in the law, by the study of the higher mathematics, history and latin under the tutelage of an older sister who had enjoyed superior educational advantages in New England. He worked at his trade during the summer, and later taught country schools in the winter. In 1863 he entered the Law Department of the University of Michigan, pursued the regular course and was graduated in the spring of 1865. During the same year he was admitted to the Bar in the States of Michigan and Ohio, at Ann Arbor and Bryan, respectively. He first located at Bryan, and began practice in partnership with John A. Simon, but removed to Charlotte, Michigan, the following year, where he con- tinued to reside until the statute was enacted which requires the Judges of the Supreme Court to live at the capital of the State. He was a resident of Charlotte continuously for twenty-seven years, from and after 1866. While engaged in law practice there he associated with him in partnership Mr. J. E. C. Hickock, and prepared abstract records of the county. Subsequently he was head of the firm of Hooker & DeGraff. He was a successful practitioner and regarded with much favor, both as a counsellor and trial lawyer. During the period of his greatest prestige at the Bar of Eaton county he met in the forum some of the ablest lawyers in the State. lle was a student from habit, thoroughly versed in the principles of the law and their application or construction by the appellate courts of the country. He was accustomed to read the reports, and current discussions in law publications, so as to keep fully abreast of the progress in the pro- fession. He prepared his cases after careful study and ample research, and tried them with rare tact and ability. He was always deferential to the Judge on the Bench, as the interpreter of the law, and treated him with unfailing courtesy. He was equally regardful of the rights of attorneys practising at the same Bar and never treated with discourtesy a lawyer employed on the opposite side in the trial of a cause. His course at the Bar was such as to command the approval of the court and the respect of his profes-
390
BENCHI AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
sional brethren. His integrity was conceded; his force of character and ability never questioned by one opposed to him in a controversy. Judge Hooker has always been a Republican in politics, but has not at any time been liable to the charge of pernicious activity. The first office which he held was that of superintendent of schools of Eaton county. Afterwards he was prosecuting attorney two terms, from 1873 to 1877. In 1878 he was appointed Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, by Governor Croswell. He was afterwards elected and re-elected, serving as Circuit Judge until he resigned to accept the higher position of Justice of the Supreme Court. He was elected first to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Chief Justice Morse, receiving 223, 139 votes, to 222,973 cast for his com- petitor, William Newton, the Democratic-Populist candidate. At the same election the Prohibition candidate received 20,820 votes. In April, 1893, he was re-elected for the full term, which expires December 31, 1903. The candidate against him in this last election was Judge George H. Durand, of Flint. During his service of fifteen years on the Circuit Bench, Judge Hooker presided at some trials of great importance, both criminal and civil, and made a reputation for justice, conscientiousness and impartiality. Among them were upwards of twenty cases of homicide. The murder cases of Carveth, Canfield and Barnard, and the notorious Pugeley case, and the protracted Perrin-Sibley litigation were among the most important in the annals of Michigan jurisprudence. His influence over juries was unusual, and while. able to conceal his opinions of the merits of the case he was able to impress them with the nature and importance of their duty to the parties litigant and the public, so that they rarely wandered from the questions at issue, or failed to reach just ver- dicts. The circuit in which he presided is the most populous in the State of any having a single judge, but his industry and executive ability enabled him to dispose of the business with promptness and satisfaction, both to attorneys and litigants. He possesses certain mental traits that are most admirable in a judge-equability of temper, acute perception and a disposition to be perfectly fair; a mind trained to habits of thought; large powers of concentration and penetration, exceptional capacity for hard work. These characteristics, sustained by incorruptible integrity and supplemented by that indefinable quality which passes current under the name of judicial temper, gave him high reputation as a Circuit Judge. Ilis breadth of view, vigor of intellect, discriminating discernment of the res gesta and the res adjudicata in a case are among his important quali- fications for the duties of a justice of the Supreme Court. His general competency, his power of endurance in the investigation of the abstract questions of law, or reviewing the procedure of a lower court, and his sound judgment, complete the symmetry and give him rank as one of the very able jurists of the State. Judge Hooker was married August 5, 1868, to Miss Emma E. Carter, daughter of Hon. William Carter, of Defiance. Their family consists of two sons, Harry E. Hooker, a lawyer, of Lansing, and Dr. Charles E. Hooker, of Grand Rapids.
The Century Publishing & Engraving to Chicago.
39
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
JOSEPH B. MOORE, Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Joseph B. Moore was born in Oakland county, Michigan, November 3, 1845. Ile attended the district schools and aspired to acquire a thorough classical education. After due preparation he was admitted to Hillsdale College and was a member of the class of 1869. Through stress of poverty, how- ever, he was compelled to leave college in 1868, a year before graduation. He had already chosen the profession of law and his entire self-dependence required that he should qualify himself to earn his living at the practice as early as possible. After leaving Hillsdale he attended the Law School at the University of Michigan for one year. In 1869 he removed to Lapeer and, having been admitted to the Bar, entered upon the practice of his chosen profession. The year following he was elected Circuit Court Com- missioner and held the office two years. In 1872 he was elected prosecut- ing attorney of Lapeer county and re-elected in 1874, serving four years. About this time he was also elected mayor of the city of Lapeer by the largest majority ever given to any man for the office. It was his desire and his purpose to devote himself exclusively to the practice of law, but it was not easy to keep his resolution in the face of a demand made by his political party and supported by a majority of the people. He did, how- ever, decline a nomination to the office of State Senator tendered by the Republican party in 1876. A nomination to the same office was pressed upon him in 1878 with such earnestness that he accepted and was elected. He discharged the duties of legislator with entire acceptability to his con- stituents, but firmly declined a renomination. He had decided irrevocably to employ all of his energies and abilities in his profession. His reputa- tion as a lawyer received numerous and high encomiums for his conduct of the defense in the famous Bernard-Curtis murder trial, where he success- fully defended Mrs. Bernard, a wealthy woman of Grand Rapids. He was equally successful in civil cases of importance and established himself as a practitioner of reputation second to none in the county, within ten years after his admission to the Bar. In 1887 he was elected Judge of the Sixth _Judicial Circuit. It is in the capacity of judge that he has gained most renown and made a reputation coextensive with the State. As judge of this important court he exhibited both legal and executive abilities of a high order. His capacity for work and his energies well directed enabled him to dispose of a very large number of cases. His comprehension of the law and his aptness in applying it to the consideration of each case enabled him to decide them correctly. During a service of eight years in that office he heard and disposed of four hundred and seventy criminal cases and fifteen hundred civil actions. All of these were so carefully con- sidered and so justly determined that of the number appealed only two of the criminal and thirteen of the civil cases were reversed by the Supreme Court. This record probably has few parallels, if any, in the history of jurisprudence in the State of Michigan. It proves that Judge Moore is
. 392
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
possessed of an analytical mind and acute discrimination; that he is thoroughly versed in the law and has a keen sense of justice; that his judi- cial investigations are pursued with the purpose of arriving at truth and justice; that he is guided and dominated by an integrity of mind and character which cannot be swerved from a line of rectitude. His posses- sion of the qualities which are most desired in a judge was recognized generally by the Bar and the public. His worthiness, for promotion, both as to legal qualifications and personal qualities, caused his nomination in the spring of 1895 as the Republican candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court. He was elected by the largest majority ever given a candidate for that office. He resigned the office of Circuit Judge to accept a seat upon the Supreme Bench, January 1, 1896. He is yet comparatively new to the duties of this high and responsible office. His record as judge of the highest misi prius Court, however, forms a substantial basis for the predic- tion that his career upon the Supreme Bench will be entirely honorable to himself and useful to the State. It remains only to refer briefly to Judge Moore's family history. His father, Jacob J. Moore, born in New Jersey, is still living. His mother, Hapsebeth Gillett Moore, was born in Allegany county, New York, and died in 1893. His ancestry on both sides came to this country very early in its history. He married in December, 1872, Etta I .. Bently, the younger of the two daughters of Joseph and Julia Bently. There are no children the issue of the marriage. Judge and Mrs. Moore have traveled extensively in this country and in Europe. They have assisted a number of young people in their studies and college careers.
CHARLES C. HOPKINS, Lansing. Charles Clark Hopkins, the son of Erastus and Climene (Clark) Hopkins, was born in the township of White Lake, Oakland county, Michigan, April 4, 1849. Ilis ancestors were among the earliest settlers in Connecticut, coming from Coventry, England. The family, according to Burke, was of established antiquity and eminence, enjoyed for a long series of years Parliamentary rank, served a succession of monarchs, and acquired civil and military distinction. They were prominent in the affairs of Coventry in the latter part of the sixteenth century, one William Hopkins, Jr., having been mayor in 1564. He had two brothers, Richard and Nicholas, both sheriffs of the same town, in 1554 and 1561 respectively. Richard had two sons, Sampson his heir, and William, proprietor of the lordship of Shortley. Sampson was mayor in 160g. Ile had three sons, Sir Richard, Sir William, and Sampson, the latter being mayor of Coventry in 1640. The eldest became eminent at the Bar, attained the rank of Sergeant at Law, was Steward of Coventry, and represented the city in Parliament at the Restoration. Their estates by intermarriage passed to General Northey in 1799, and he assumed the
ยท
-
.
:
+
The tintaru Publishing a Enganoget Change.
1
393
BENCH AND BAR OF MICHIGAN.
surname and arms of Hopkins upon inheriting the estate of his maternal ancestor, and was known as Northey-Hopkins of Oving House. The early Hopkinses of Connecticut are of this family. John Hopkins the progenitor of the Connecticut line -- from whom Charles C. Hopkins is descended - came to this country in 1634 and settled first in Cambridge. About that time the increasing number of colonists suggested the formation of new settlements further westward, and as a result Hartford Colony was estab- lished, and in the colonial records John Hopkins is spoken of as the original owner of the lands then settled. The line of genealogical pro- gression from John Hopkins to Erastus, the father of the subject of this sketch, is as follows: John Hopkins who was made a freeman of Cam- bridge, March 4, 1635, removed to Hartford the same year and died in 1654 leaving a widow and two children, one of whom, Stephen, born in 1634, married Dorcas, a daughter of John Bronson. He died in October, 1689, leaving six children. His eldest son John had eight children, one of whom, Samuel, was a graduate of Yale in 1718 and for some time a min- ister of West Springfield, Massachusetts. Another son, Timothy, was the father of Samuel Hopkins, the celebrated divine who founded the Hopkin- sian School, and was the author of several well-known works, and a promi- nent character in Mrs. Stowe's " Minister's Wooing." President Mark Hopkins of Williams College was of the same family. Another son was Consider, who died in 1726 leaving a family of five children. One of the sons, Consider Jr., was born in West Hartford, June, 1723, served in the Continental Army, and died in Saratoga county, New York, in 1795. He was the father of Mark Hopkins, the grandfather of Charles C. Three uncles of Mark Hopkins were in the Continental Army. One was cap- tured by the British and was starved to death on the " Jersey Prison Ship " in New York Harbor, and another was killed by Tory "Cow Boys" while home on a furlough. Erastus Hopkins was born in Paris, Oneida county, New York, Aug. 16, 1804, and moved with his family from Steuben county to Oakland county, Michigan, in the fall of 1834, going in an emigrant wagon the whole distance. He cleared a farm in the wilderness and. lived to see the entire country around settled, remaining upon the farm until his death in 1876, his wife having died in November, 1864. Three of his sons were in the Union Army in the War of the Rebellion, one Dan G., being mortally wounded at the battle of South Mountain, Maryland. Charles C. remained on the farm until 1867 when he entered the State Normal School, spending a portion of his time on the farm and teaching. He graduated in the class of 1872 and was at once offered and accepted the principalship of the union school at Rockland, Michigan, remaining two years - spending the summer vacation of 1873 in surveying a section of the U. S. Military Road from Fort Howard, Green Bay, to Fort Wilkins, Copper Harbor. In the fall of 1874 Mr. Hopkins entered the Law Department of the University of Michigan, graduating therefrom in 1876. During the Legislative Session of 1875 Mr. Hopkins was clerk of the
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.