Francis v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 180.,180. |
| Citation | 243 Mich. 117,219 N.W. 649 |
| Parties | FRANCIS v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case-Made From Circuit Court, Wayne County; Guy E. Smity, Judge.
Action by James Francis against the Ford Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Case-made and judgment affirmed.
Argued before FEAD, C. J., and NORTH, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, and SHARPE, JJ.Clifford B. Longley and Wallace R. Middleton, both of Detroit, for appellant.
James Francis, of Detroit, pro se.
The question here presented is whether section 12376, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, which permits a person not personally served with process to petition for leave to defend at any time within three years after a decree is made in a proceeding to quiet title under the act providing therefor in cases of ‘unknown heirs, devisees, legatees and assigns' (Comp. Laws 1915, § 12375), is applicable to proceedings in partition under chapter 31 (section 13258 et seq.).
This chapter is complete in itself, and relates to but one subject, ‘the partition of lands owned by several persons.’ Section 13268 reads as follows:
‘If any parties having an interest in such lands are unknown, or if either of the known parties reside out of this state, or cannot be found therein, the same proceedings shall be had as in other chancery cases under like circumstances: Provided, however, that the order of publication shall contain a sufficient description of the premises whereof partition is sought, in addition to the other matters required by law to appear in such order.’
There is provision for publication, and appointment of guardians. Section 13275 provides that, if some of the parties have not appeared and partition may be had, it shall not affect the interests of such persons. If, however, the lands are so situate that partition may not be had ‘without great prejudice to the owners,’ a sale may be ordered (section 13287), and after sale and report thereof, if the same be ‘approved and confirmed by the court,’ the commissioner shall be directed to execute conveyances to the purchasers (section 13309). Section 13310 reads as follows:
‘Such conveyances so executed shall be recorded in the county where the premises are situated; and shall be a bar, both in law and equity, against all persons interested in any way, who shall have been named as parties in the said proceedings, and against all such parties as were unknown, if notice of the order to appear and answer shall have been given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. August
...distinguished from an equitable title.’ Partition in this state is purely statutory. Platt v. Stewart, 10 Mich. 260;Francis v. Ford Motor Co., 243 Mich. 117, 219 N. W. 649. ‘The Circuit Courts in Chancery, though in ordinary cases of equity cognizance courts of general jurisdiction, must, w......
-
Henkel v. Henkel
...of the inherent equitable jurisdiction over partition proceedings or must be warranted, if the rules stated in Francis v. Ford Motor Co., 243 Mich. 117, 219 N.W. 649, and followed in Eckhardt v. Dompier, 250 Mich. 91, 229 N.W. 491, are correct, by that part of section 15011, 3 Comp.Laws 192......
- Hume v. Vill. of Fruitport
-
Eckhardt v. Dompier, 32.
...the report of sale to be approved and confirmed by the court. Partition proceedings in this state are statutory. Francis v. Ford Motor Co., 243 Mich. 117, 219 N. W. 649. We find no acceptance by the court of the bid at the first sale. Without acceptance of the bid, the ordering of a resale ......