Lewis v. Campau

Decision Date11 July 1866
Citation14 Mich. 458
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesGeorge W. Lewis v. Theodore J. Campau and others

Heard July 6, 1866; July 7, 1866

Appeal from Wayne circuit in chancery.

The complaint filed his bill in the court below, praying for the appointment of a receiver, and for other substantial relief. After answer, and before the cause was at issue by replication, a motion was made by the complainant for the appointment of a receiver, according to the prayer of the bill; and the court made an order accordingly. From this order an appeal was taken to this court.

The particular character of the bill, and other facts pertinent to a full understanding of the questions involved, are stated in the opinion of the court.

Motion to dismiss denied. with $ 10 costs.

C. I Walker and A. B. Maynard, for complainant:

The cause was not at issue when the order was made. It was interlocutory, and could not be appealed from: 18 How. U.S 201; 19 Id. 283; 2 Doug. (Mich.), 288; 5 Mich. 460; 10 Id 398, 425; 12 Id. 22, 311.

G. V N. Lothrop, for defendants.

Campbell J. Cooley and Christiancy JJ. concurred. Martin Ch. J., dissenting.

OPINION

Campbell J.:

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, on the ground that the order appealed from is neither a "decree" nor a "final order " within the statute regulating chancery appeals.

The bill was filed by Lewis, setting forth that he had applied for the removal of such of the defendants as are administrators of the estate of Joseph Campau, deceased, and that from the decree of the probate court, refusing such removal, he had appealed to the Wayne circuit court, where this bill was presented. He avers also the alleged facts of misconduct in the management of the estate, and improper charges in the accounts, which are also under litigation, and prays for a receiver to take entire charge of the property in the hands of the administrators, until the question of their removal is settled.

The bill is a bill in aid of the appeal proceedings, and the relief asked is entirely ancillary, so far as the appointment of a receiver is concerned. There is no fund in the hands of the court, as a court of chancery, to be administered in this cause, to which the appointment of a receiver might be incidental; and there is no prayer in the bill asking such an appointment, except as the relief desired on the merits.

Within a few days after the bill was filed, and before any answer was put in, and before the subpoena was returnable, notice was given of a motion for a receiver, in precise accordance with the prayer of the bill. Upon this motion an order was made appointing such receiver to act until further order, and enjoining the administrators from further meddling with the estate; reserving the question of costs and further directions until the final hearing. This is the order appealed from.

It is claimed by complainant that this is a purely interlocutory order, and therefore not open to appeal.

The statute restricts the right of appeal to decrees and final orders, and the settled meaning of the term "decree," in this sense, is determined to embrace only such decrees as are not interlocutory. The difference between interlocutory and final decrees is this, that in the former some further steps are required to be taken to enable the court to adjudicate and settle the rights of the parties while, under a final decree, the party obtains his rights without any further adjudication on the merits, either by the direct operation of the decree itself, or by means of proceedings of a ministerial character in execution of it. But it is not necessary that a decree should dispose of all the merits. Whenever ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Wells v. Shriver
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 5, 1921
    ...appellate purposes. An adjudication made at any stage of a cause may have such an effect as to render it appealable. The case of Lewis v. Campau, 14 Mich. 458, is an example of this. The order appealed from in that case was made at a very early stage of the controversy. And it is only after......
  • City of Ogden City v. Bear Lake & River Water-Works & Irrigation Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • March 26, 1898
    ......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. Alvarado, 64 ... like this. They appear to be supported by the better reasons. Barry v. Briggs , 22 Mich. 200;. Brown v. Ring , 77 Mich. 159; Lewis . v. Campau , 14 Mich. 458. . . The. appellants insist that the order appointing the receiver,. appealed from, is erroneous; that ......
  • Wells v. Shriver
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 5, 1921
    ...the life of the partnership. If this was not admissible, an appeal was allowable, within the previous decision of this court. Lewis v. Campau, 14 Mich. 458; People v. Jones, Id. 303; Maxfield v. Freeman, 39 Id. 64; Taylor v. Sweet, 40 Id. 736; Morey v. Grant, 48 Id. 326.' " Hake v. Coach, 1......
  • Perrin v. Lepper
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 28, 1888
    ...this case, and from which the appeals are taken, is appealable. Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 200; People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335; Lewis v. Campau, 14 Mich. 458; Kirby v. Ingersoll, 1 (Mich.) 477; Heath v. Waters, 40 Mich. 457, 466; Bullard v. Green, 9 Mich. 222; Smith v. Walker, 57 Mich. 456......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT