Salling v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 15 October 1872 |
| Citation | 25 Mich. 489 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | E. Nelson Salling v. August Johnson and others |
Heard October 9, 1872
Appeal in Chancery from Manistee Circuit.
Motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the order appealed from, is not a final one.
Appeal dismissed without costs.
S. W Fowler, for the motion.
Ramsdell & Benedict, contra.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order appointing a receiver, on the ground that it is not final.
The order can only be understood by referring briefly to the nature of the controversy.
The complainant sets up, in his bill, the former existence and dissolution of a partnership with one J. A. Johnson, on which dissolution the goods and some other property were absolutely assigned, without condition, to J. A. Johnson; certain other assets divided between the partners; certain further assets to be collected for joint benefit; and Johnson was to pay debts, account for a share of the collections, and pay certain sums, not yet due, to Salling, and secure Salling by mortgage on real estate in which the firm had an equitable interest, and which Johnson was to take as part of his share on the dissolution.
J. A Johnson is charged with having attempted to create fraudulent incumbrances against the real estate, so as to defeat Salling's security, and with having misapplied the assets, and not paid the debts. He is also charged with attempting, in various ways, to dispose of his own individual property, with intent to defraud creditors and said Salling.
August Johnson is made a defendant, as assignee, charged to be without consideration, of a chattel mortgage given to J. A. Johnson, for purchase money of a part of the goods which he obtained on the dissolution of the partnership, and on which it was not agreed Salling should have any security. This is the only pretext for making him a defendant.
The bill was filed on the 26th day of August, 1872, and on the same day upon the bill alone, and without any notice to any person whomsoever, and without any other papers or affidavits, the circuit judge made an order, appointing a particular person named in it, receiver, without any reference or showing in regard to him, or to his fitness, and directed J. A. Johnson, and his wife, Ellen Johnson, to turn over to the receiver the real estate, all the assets which had ever belonged to the firm, and all of Johnson's stock of goods,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bettman et al v. Harness et al.
...119; 1 Md. 525; 10 W. Va. 50; 5 Leigh, 192; 52 Fed. Rep. 428; 24 S. E. 645; 17 W. Ya. 578, 582; 34 Nebr. 616; 41 Mich. 207; 10 Mich. 335; 25 Mich. 489; 44 Mich. 479; 6 W. Ya. 441; 13 Wall. 23-46; 111 IT. S. Rep. 341; 95 IT. S. 673; 109 IT. S. 278, 282; 12 W. Ya. 117, 131, 132; 113 Pa. 83; 1......
-
Coal v. Eitz
...the following cases are cited: Calvert v. State, 34 Mich. 616; Arnold v. Bright, 41 Mich. 207; People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335; Sailing v. Johnson, 25 Mich. 489; Mc Combs v. Merry hew, 40 Mich. 725; Tawas &c. R. Co. v. Iosco, 44 Mich. 479; Railroad Co. v. Judge, 31 Mich. 456. To this may b......
-
Grand Rapids Electrotype Co. v. Powers-Tyson Corp.
...attempts to divest rights by interlocutory and ex parte orders was somewhat considered in People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335, and Salling v. Johnson, 25 Mich. 489. See, also, Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201.’ The bill of complaint conferred no jurisdiction on the court to appoint a receiver. Ma......
-
Savage v. Sternberg
......Develing, 61 Ill. 201; Andrews v. Knox. Co., 70 Ill. 65; Darst v. People, 62 Ill. 306;. Lamb v. Railroad Co., 39 Iowa, 333; Salling v. Johnson, 25 Mich. 489; Smith v. People (Colo. App.) 29 P. 924. And that it is the duty of an officer. to obey the law, rather ......