Benhard v. Darrow

Michigan Court of Chancery

Benhard v. Darrow

1 Walk. Ch. 519

DecidedDecember 15, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Walk. Ch. 519 (Benhard v. Darrow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benhard v. Darrow, 1 Walk. Ch. 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

Parks, not being a party to the suit, should have been served with notice of the motion. Where a party to the suit is in possession, the motion is ex parte; but one in possession not a party to the suit, is entitled to notice of the motion, and to be heard on it, so far as the granting of it may affect his rights.

Let an order be entered requiring Parks to show cause against the motion, on being served with copies of the affidavits, &c.

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

The Chancellor.

Parks, not being a party to the suit, should have been served with notice of the motion. Where a party to the suit is in possession, the motion is ex parte; but one in possession not a party to the suit, is entitled to notice of the motion, and to be heard on it, so far as the granting of it may affect his rights.

Let an order be entered requiring Parks to show cause against the motion, on being served with copies of the affidavits, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Walk. Ch. 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benhard-v-darrow-michchanct-1844.