Response or Comment
While rules of procedure are not saved from the rude hand of the reformer by the "due process" guarantees of our constitutions, they do rest, nevertheless, under the very efficient protection of professional conservatism. Such rules are looked upon by the bench and bar as their own special concern, and innovations in this field must maintain the burden of proving their character before both the lawyer members of the legislature and the lawyers and judges who interpret them in the course of litigation. It would be natural, therefore, to expect that a proposed reform in procedure would have to meet at least the possibility of two shrinking processes, one at the hands of the legislature and the other at the hands of the court. An interesting case of the latter kind is found in Chase v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, (Mich., i921), 183 N. W. 63.
Sunderland, Edson R. "The Usefulness of Intervention as a Remedy in Attachment." Mich. L. Rev. 20 (1921): 96-8.