Mloodysnowski v. Raniak

• Decision Date: 01 April 1927
• Docket Number: Nos. 41,42.,s. 41
• Parties: MLOODYSNOWSKI et al. v. RANIAK et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

238 Mich. 296

212 N.W. 968

MLOODYSNOWSKI et al.

v.RANIAK et al.

Nos. 41, 42.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 1, 1927.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph H. Collins, Judge.

Action of ejectment by Stanley Mloodysnowski and another against George Raniak and another. Judgment on a directed verdict for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except WIEST, J.Barbour & Martin, of Detroit (Charles C. Stewart, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Kaminski & Kowalski, of Detroit, for appellees.

CLARK, J.

Plaintiffs in this action of ejectment claim title to a certain lot in the city of Detroit, Wayne county, by mesne conveyances from Susanna Mynell, whose record title need not be traced beyond a decree entered in the circuit court of Wayne county in chancery, on September 4, 1915, in which cause defendants here George Raniak and Mary Raniak were plaintiffs and Susanna Mynell was defendant. There plaintiffs Raniak filed bill against Miss Mynell to remove cloud from title to the lot and to other lands. Defendant Mynell answered and by cross-bill prayed affirmative relief, which, as we gather from the record, was specific performance of a contract as affected by a former decree of said court, and in effect that title be quieted, and for general relief. Except for the Mynell interest, plaintiffs Raniak then were last grantees in the regular chain of title and were as well grantees of a purchaser of tax titles. In that cause plaintiffs' bill was dismissed and Miss Mynell was decreed the relief prayed. She complied with the provisions of the decree as shown by the record thereof in the office of the register of deeds. The trial judge in the case at bar, holding that, ‘* * * as the decree was not appealed from or vacated, it still remains in full force and effect and that George and Mary Raniak are bound thereby,’ directed verdict for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error.

Defendants here, the Raniaks, had at the time of the suit in equity the same interests in the land that they contend for here. Plaintiffs have succeeded to the interest of Miss Mynell. In effect the parties before us are the same as in the case in equity. It is the same land. The equity court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. A decree was entered. No appeal was taken or review sought. Now by futile contention of lack of jurisdiction it is sought to attach collaterally such decree, to point out...