Michigan Supreme Court, 1897

Hall v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided January 5, 1897 · Hooker, Other

111 Mich. 395; 69 N.W. 643

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Michigan State Telephone Co. (Mich. 1924)
Carpenter v. Landman (Mich. 1916)
Woodmansee v. Ann Arbor Brick Co. (Mich. 1911)
Mardian v. Wayne Circuit Judge (Mich. 1898)
L & L Concession Co. v. Goldhar-Zimner Theatre Enterprises, Inc. (Mich. 1952)
Steggles v. National Discount Corp. (Mich. 1949)
Ellis v. Penn Beef Co. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1911)
Union Trust Co. v. Charlotte General Electric Co. (Mich. 1908)
Goldman v. Manistee Circuit Judge (Mich. 1908)
State Road Bridge Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge (Mich. 1906)
Lawton v. Richardson (Mich. 1897)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Hooker, J.

The circuit court in chancery made an order appointing a receiver, and requiring defendants to deliver over to said receiver all property constituting a stock of dry goods owned by Richardson and others, which was in the possession of other defendants as mortgagees. The bill was filed under 3 How. Stat. § 8749o, and the order was made pendente lite. A motion was made to vacate said order, which was denied,' and an application for mandamus to compel it is made.

This order attempts to divest possession of property on a preliminary inquiry, and, if not an absolute nullity, was improvidently made. Port Huron, etc., R. Co. v. St. Clair Circuit Judge, 31 Mich. 456; People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335; Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich, *396201; Sailing v. Johnson, 25 Mich. 489; People v. Jones, 33 Mich. 303; McCombs v. Merryhew, 40 Mich. 725; Tawas, etc., R. Co. v. Iosco Circuit Judge, 44 Mich. 481; Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich. 380.

But, as shown by most of the cases cited, and many others that might be cited, the order is appealable, and mandamus should not be resorted to in such cases, as we have repeatedly held. The case of Scott v. Wayne Circuit Judges, 58 Mich. 314, is in point. We must, therefore, deny the writ, but we have no doubt that the circuit judge will vacate the order upon a renewal of the application, and upon being advised of the view taken by this court. Neither party will be allowed costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.