Duncan v. Campau
| Decision Date | 15 May 1867 |
| Citation | 15 Mich. 415 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William C. Duncan v. Daniel J. Campau and others |
Heard May 15, 1867.
Appeal in chancery from Wayne circuit.
This was a bill for partition of the real estate of the late Joseph Campau, deceased.
A receiver was asked for, and the bill also prayed that the administrators of said Campau be enjoined from interfering with the estate; they having acquiesced in the action of several of the heirs attempting to dispose of it among themselves, in fraud of complainant, and having yielded possession.
The court below granted an order appointing a receiver with the usual powers, and from which defendants appealed.
At the hearing of the appeal in this court complainant moved that the appeal be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
D. C Holbrook, Maynard & Meddaugh, and C. I. Walker, for complainant.
Levi Bishop and G. V. N. Lothrop, for defendants.
OPINION
Said he thought the appeal should be dismissed for the same reasons assigned bye him in Lewis v. Campau, 14 Mich. 458.
This case differs entirely from Lewis v. Campau. I think a legal estate can not be divested by preliminary proceedings. But nothing like that is attempted here. The receiver is appointed over nothing but the real estate. The bill shows that the administrators have given up possession of it, and they have joined with the other heirs in their attempts to divide it. We have held they were not bound to take possession unless they chose, and I doubt whether they could do so after such acts as are charged. It comes then to the simple inquiry whether a receiver can be appointed over tenants in common. I think the precedents permit this in some cases, and where, as in this case, the other tenants not only deny complainant's title, but have endeavored to entangle the whole title, and are not disposed to account for the rents and profits, there is power to make such appointment. The bill, however defective, is a bill for partition. The receivership is merely incidental and ancillary, and we can not review the discretion of the judge in granting it.
Cooley J.
Regarded the order appealed from as clearly interlocutory within the former decisions by this court. The order in Lewis v Campau gave the complainant that which his bill prayed for as the end and object of the bill upon that branch of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Ogden City v. Bear Lake & River Water-Works & Irrigation Co.
...... Cunningham, 80 Ill. 467; Hottenstein v. Conrad, . 5 Kan. 249; Rolling Mill Co. v. R. R. Co., 31 Kan. 90; Johnson v. Hanner, 2 Lea. 8; Duncan v. Campau; 15 Mich. 415; Brown v. Vandermeulen, 41 Mich. 418; Wilson. v. Davis, 1 Mont. 98; French Bank case, 53 Cal. 495;. French v. ......
-
Seibert v. Harden
...or proved in this case, hence no receiver should have been appointed. Baker v. Baker, 108 Md. 269; Ames v. Ames, 148 Ill. 321; Duncan v. Campau, 15 Mich. 415; Low v. Holmes, 17 N.J.Eq. 148; Weise Welsh, 30 N.J.Eq. 431; Vincent v. Parker, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 65; Bowers v. Durant, 40 Hun, 640; Ve......
-
Seibert v. Harden
...or proved in this case, hence no receiver should have been appointed. Baker v. Baker, 108 Md. 269; Ames v. Ames, 148 Ill. 321; Duncan v. Campau, 15 Mich. 415; Low v. Holmes, 17 N.J. Eq. 148; Weise v. Welsh, 30 N.J. Eq. 431; Vincent v. Parker, 7 Paige (N.Y.) 65; Bowers v. Durant, 40 Hun, 640......
-
Heinze v. Butte & Boston Consol. Min. Co.
...of the whole rents; and, under the circumstances, I think that a receiver of the whole rents ought to be appointed.' In Duncan v. Campau, 15 Mich. 415, Judge Campbell 'It comes, then, to the simple inquiry whether a receiver can be appointed over tenants in common. I think the precedents pe......