Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp., 51
| Decision Date | 26 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,51 |
| Citation | 108 N.W.2d 761,362 Mich. 692 |
| Parties | Ida SANDERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEESON AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, and Alma M. Woodle, jointly and severally, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Milton Roberts, Detroit, for appellant.
Shapero & Shapero, Detroit, for appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
Initially three suits were commenced: one by plaintiff Edward Sanders, based on libel; two others by plaintiffs Ida Sanders and Ruth M. Hagelberg, based both on libel and malicious use of process and abuse of process. By stipulation it was agreed that an appeal in the Ida Sanders care would be determinative of the issues.
Defendants filed motion to dismiss, which was granted by the lower court. Plaintiffs' motions for rehearing and for leave to amend declaration were denied by the lower court.
The facts giving rise to the instant case are as follows: Defendants obtained judgment against Edward Sanders only, and when execution was returned unsatisfied, defendants filed bill of complaint to enforce judgment alleging that plaintiffs (Edward Sanders, Ida Sanders and Ruth M. Hagelberg) had conspired together to defeat defendants in the collection of the judgment by concealing assets of Edward Sanders and thus making such assets unavailable to defendants.
The bill of complaint alleged tht assets were concealed in a joint safe deposit box held by Edward Sanders and Ida Sanders in the National Bank of Detroit and that funds standing in the Detroit Bank and Trust Company account were in the name of 'Sanders Investment Company, Edward Sanders and Ruth M. Hagelberg.'
The bill of complaint made the following statement upon which plaintiff bases the libel action:
'That the said Edward Sanders, Ida Sanders and R. M. Hagelberg are in fact committing a crime and should be restained by this court from the carrying out of their conspiracy.'
Plaintiff contends the allegations in the bill of complaint accusing her of committing a crime were not pertinent to the issue and, therefore, libelous. Defendants contend the allegations contained in a judicial pleading are privileged.
In dismissing the libel action with prejudice, Hon. Horace W. Gilmore, circuit judge for Wayne county, stated:
'Plaintiffs recognize the general rule according privilege to judicial pleadings and proceedings, but state that the defamatory statements were utterly without purpose other than to ridicule the plaintiffs, were totally irrelevant to the issue, and thus actionable. Defendant cites numerous authorities which have been considered by the court.
'The general rule in Michigan seems to have been stated succinctly and well in Hartung v. Shaw, 130 Mich. 177 . There the Court said, inter alia:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLorean v. Cork Gully
...alleged acts of interference involve use of the courts. Weissman v. Hassett, 47 B.R. 462, 468 (D.C.1985); Sanders v. Leeson Air Cond. Corp., 362 Mich. 692, 695, 108 N.W.2d 761 (1961). Further, JZD is collaterally estopped from claiming the court orders were improper. Finally, there was a su......
-
Maiden v. Rozwood
...157, 164, 398 N.W.2d 245 (1986); Meyer v. Hubbell, 117 Mich.App. 699, 709, 324 N.W.2d 139 (1982); Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp., 362 Mich. 692, 695, 108 N.W.2d 761 (1961). Falsity or malice on the part of the witness does not abrogate the privilege. Sanders, supra. The privilege ......
-
Ellis v. Kaye-Kibbey
...260, 725 N.W.2d 470, 474 (2006) (quoting Couch v. Schultz, 193 Mich.App. 292, 483 N.W.2d 684 (1982) and citing Sanders v. Leeson A/C Corp., 362 Mich. 692, 108 N.W.2d 761 (1961)). For example, the quasi-judicial privilege immunizes statements made in an attorney's letter in the course of set......
-
Hawkins v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
...v. Swihart, 215 Mich.App. 88, 96, 544 N.W.2d 651 (1996), and non-judicial adjudicators and mediators, Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp., 362 Mich. 692, 695, 108 N.W.2d 761 (1961); Boraks v. American Arbitration Ass'n, 205 Mich.App. 149, 517 N.W.2d 771 (1994); immunity for those consc......