Balahoski v. Kent Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Balahoski v. Kent Circuit Judge

219 N.W. 597, 243 Mich. 70, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 581

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1928

DocketCalendar 33,664

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 219 N.W. 597 (Balahoski v. Kent Circuit Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balahoski v. Kent Circuit Judge, 219 N.W. 597, 243 Mich. 70, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 581 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

Plaintiff applies for mandamus to compel Major L. Dunham, judge of the circuit court for Kent county, to settle the bill of exceptions. November 18, 1927, plaintiff commenced suit in the circuit court for Kent county upon ■ a policy of insurance against the Continental Casualty Company, defendant. Defendant’s appearance was entered, and a motion made for security for costs. An order was granted. The security not having been furnished, the case was later dismissed for a failure to furnish security for costs. Plaintiff files application for mandamus requiring the circuit judge to settle and sign the bill of exceptions.

No bill of exceptions is necessary, under Supreme Court Rule No. 11, to review the action of the circuit judge on writ of error. The execution of a writ of *72 error is made to appear by a return of the writ with a transcript of the record annexed, officially certified by the clerk of the court. Scott v. Brown, 175 Mich. 447.

This court will not review the discretion of a circuit judge who makes or denies an order for security for costs. It is proper to dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to comply with an order requiring security for costs, a reasonable opportunity having been given to comply therewith. Goodenough v. Burton, 146 Mich. 50.

Writ denied.

Fead, C. J., and North, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, and Shakpe, JJ.-, concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Potter, J.

Plaintiff applies for mandamus to compel Major L. Dunham, judge of the circuit court for Kent county, to settle the bill of exceptions. November 18, 1927, plaintiff commenced suit in the circuit court for Kent county upon ■ a policy of insurance against the Continental Casualty Company, defendant. Defendant’s appearance was entered, and a motion made for security for costs. An order was granted. The security not having been furnished, the case was later dismissed for a failure to furnish security for costs. Plaintiff files application for mandamus requiring the circuit judge to settle and sign the bill of exceptions.

No bill of exceptions is necessary, under Supreme Court Rule No. 11, to review the action of the circuit judge on writ of error. The execution of a writ of *72 error is made to appear by a return of the writ with a transcript of the record annexed, officially certified by the clerk of the court. Scott v. Brown, 175 Mich. 447.

This court will not review the discretion of a circuit judge who makes or denies an order for security for costs. It is proper to dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to comply with an order requiring security for costs, a reasonable opportunity having been given to comply therewith. Goodenough v. Burton, 146 Mich. 50.

Writ denied.

Fead, C. J., and North, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, and Shakpe, JJ.-, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 N.W. 597, 243 Mich. 70, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balahoski-v-kent-circuit-judge-mich-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack