Barnett v. Powers

40 Mich. 317, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 554
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 31, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 Mich. 317 (Barnett v. Powers) 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
Barnett v. Powers, 40 Mich. 317, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 554 (Mich. 1879).

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.

Mrs. Powers appeals from an order confirming a sale on foreclosure. The suit was first brought against'her husband as sole defendant. Her title was by grant from him not recorded until after suit brought, though made before.

He died soon after suit was brought, and an attempt [319]*319was made some months thereafter to revive under the statute by petition. Comp. L., § 5102. Before this was done her title had been recorded. The bill was not amended, and there was nothing to show why she was brought in, as a wife is neither heir nor legal representative.

' A bill of revivor was never the proper remedy to bring in parties claiming otherwise than by operation of law as a consequence of the death of the original party. 2 Dan. Ch. Pr., 1696-7; Story Eq. Pl., §§ 339, 342,-354a, 377-8. Any title not thus derived could only be brought in by an original bill of some kind. This title. being derived before suit, could not under any circumstances have been brought before the court without, such a bill, whether by new suit, or an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill or bill of revivor. The statute was not designed to allow any independent right to be asserted without proper allegations. 2 Dan. Ch., Pr., 1673; Crowfoot v. Mander, 9 Sim., 396; Stewart v. Nicholls, Tamlyn, 307; Hardy v. Hull, 14 Sim., 21; Foster v. Foster, 16 Sim., 637.

Moreover, the suit abated a second time by the resignation of the first administrator and the appointment of a new one. There was no subsequent revivor.

The decree was void, and the sale was also void, and the order confirming it must be reversed with costs of this court, and twenty dollars 'and disbursements in the court below.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Haines v. Kent Circuit Judge
119 N.W. 439 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Mich. 317, 1879 Mich. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-powers-mich-1879.