Banks v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Banks v. Wayne Circuit Judge

190 N.W. 647, 221 Mich. 147, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 678

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1922

DocketCalendar No. 30,395

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 190 N.W. 647 (Banks v. Wayne 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

Banks v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 190 N.W. 647, 221 Mich. 147, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 678 (Mich. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Fellows, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Judge Marschner was right in holding that the facts set up in the supplemental bill constituted a cause of action at law rather than grounds for relief in a court of equity. If Thomas is entitled to recover from Banks upon the facts alleged it is for money had and received by Banks under a voidable contract avoided by Thomas on attaining his majority. Under these circumstances it was proper to transfer the case to the law ■side of the court. Von Hoene v. Barber, 215 Mich. 538.

[150]*150Counsel for Mr. Banks insist that the order of Judge Dingeman was a final, appealable order and res adjudicada of the rights of the parties. We do not determine the question. It may be so pleaded on the law side. By making the order of transfer the trial judge does not circumscribe the issue on the law side or determine in advance the questions which may be there raised.

That portion of the order of Judge Marschner which continued Mr. Banks’ bond has been vacated by consent of counsel for Mr. Thomas. There is no need to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the doing of that which has already been done.

Upon the state of the pleadings the answer of the defendant must be taken as true. From it it appears that the procedure fixed in the order of transfer was suggested by counsel for the present plaintiff, and that no objection was then made to the time fixed for filing the pleadings or for trial. Under these circumstances the propriety of these portions of the order may not be raised in this court for the first time.

The writ will be denied, with costs.

Wiest, McDonald, Clark, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

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

Fellows, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Judge Marschner was right in holding that the facts set up in the supplemental bill constituted a cause of action at law rather than grounds for relief in a court of equity. If Thomas is entitled to recover from Banks upon the facts alleged it is for money had and received by Banks under a voidable contract avoided by Thomas on attaining his majority. Under these circumstances it was proper to transfer the case to the law ■side of the court. Von Hoene v. Barber, 215 Mich. 538.

[150]*150Counsel for Mr. Banks insist that the order of Judge Dingeman was a final, appealable order and res adjudicada of the rights of the parties. We do not determine the question. It may be so pleaded on the law side. By making the order of transfer the trial judge does not circumscribe the issue on the law side or determine in advance the questions which may be there raised.

That portion of the order of Judge Marschner which continued Mr. Banks’ bond has been vacated by consent of counsel for Mr. Thomas. There is no need to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the doing of that which has already been done.

Upon the state of the pleadings the answer of the defendant must be taken as true. From it it appears that the procedure fixed in the order of transfer was suggested by counsel for the present plaintiff, and that no objection was then made to the time fixed for filing the pleadings or for trial. Under these circumstances the propriety of these portions of the order may not be raised in this court for the first time.

The writ will be denied, with costs.

Wiest, McDonald, Clark, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W. 647, 221 Mich. 147, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack