Hall v. Donovan
| Decision Date | 05 January 1897 |
| Citation | 111 Mich. 395,69 N.W. 643 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HALL ET AL. v. DONOVAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE. |
Original application by Thomas E. Hall and others for a writ of mandamus to J. W. Donovan, Wayne county circuit judge, to compel him to vacate a certain order. Writ denied.
Julian G. Dickinson, for relator.
Harry F. Chipman, for respondent.
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. Ann. St., � 8749o, [1] 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 divert possession of property on a preliminary inquiry, and, if not an absolute nullity, was improvidently made. People v. St. Clair Circuit Judge, 31 Mich. 456; People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335; Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201; Salling v. Johnson, 25 Mich. 489; People v. Jones, 33 Mich. 303; McCombs v. Merryhew, 40 Mich. 725; Tawas R. Co. v. Iosco Circuit Judge, 44 Mich. 481, 7 N.W. 65; Jones v. Schall, 45 Mich. 380, 8 N.W. 68. 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. Circuit Judges, 58 Mich. 314, 25 N.W. 200, 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.
---------
Notes:
[1] 3 How Ann. St. � 8749o, relating to voluntary assignments, provides that persons having preferred claims thereunder may proceed in chancery for the appointment of a receiver, and the marshaling of assets, and the application thereof to the claim or claims involved, pro rata or otherwise, in case of any fraud affecting such claim or claims.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mich. Pub. Utilities Comm'n v. Mich. State Tel. Co.
...26;Corby v. Wayne Probate Judge, 96 Mich. 11;Thomas v. Wayne Circuit Judges, 97 Mich. 608 (McGrath, Mand. Cas. No. 853); Hall v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 395; Aldrich v. Wayne Circuit Judge, Id. 525.’ To those cited in this case may be added more recent cases: Michigan Mut. Fire-Ins. ......
-
Riffle v. Sioux City and Rock Springs Coal Mining Co.
... ... Herzig, 115 N.Y.S. 330; Bellamy v. Tel. Co., 25 ... L. R. A. (n. s.) 412 and note; High on Receivers, (2nd Ed.) ... secs. 563, 615; Hall v. Nieukirk, 118 Am. St. 198 ... and note; Cortelyou v. Hathway, 64 Am. Dec. 485.) ... The district court should have rectified its mistake in ... ...
-
Ellis v. Penn Beef Company
... ... 363; ... Hutton v. Lockridge , 27 W.Va. 428; Ellicott v ... U. S. Ins. Co. , 7 Gill 307; Lewis v. Campau , 14 ... Mich. 458; Hall v. Wayne, Circuit Judge , 111 Mich ... 395, 69 N.W. 643; Maxfield v. Freeman , 39 Mich. 64: ... Callanan, et al v. Shaw , 19 Iowa 183 ... ...
-
Steggles v. Nat'l Disc. Corp.
...41 Mich. 207, 2 N.W. 16;Tawas Bay County Railroad Company v. Circuit Judge for Iosco County, 44 Mich. 479, 7 N.W. 65;Hall v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 395, 69 N.W. 643. It is largely a matter of discretion of the trial court. The general rule is that whenever courts have found a mandat......