Burgess v. Stribling

Michigan Supreme Court

Burgess v. Stribling

108 N.W. 421, 144 Mich. 532, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 1085

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1906

DocketDocket No. 19

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 N.W. 421 (Burgess v. Stribling) 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

Burgess v. Stribling, 108 N.W. 421, 144 Mich. 532, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 1085 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). In Burgess v. Stribling, 134 Mich. 33, we held that the judgment rendered by the probate court, in the proceeding for the appointment, of a guardian, that Mr. Burgess was the husband,- was res judicata in a petition for the appointment of an administrator. This proceeding is between the same parties. We held in that case that the issue of the marriage was distinctly involved in the case, and as distinctly decided. The same issue between the same parties is again sought to be raised in this proceeding. To hold that it can now be raised and determined would be to overrule Burgess v. Stribling. We refer to that case for a discussion of the question and the authorities. It is not important to discuss the other questions raised. It is sufficient to say that the ruling of the court below thereon is correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Blair, Montgomery, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). In Burgess v. Stribling, 134 Mich. 33, we held that the judgment rendered by the probate court, in the proceeding for the appointment, of a guardian, that Mr. Burgess was the husband,- was res judicata in a petition for the appointment of an administrator. This proceeding is between the same parties. We held in that case that the issue of the marriage was distinctly involved in the case, and as distinctly decided. The same issue between the same parties is again sought to be raised in this proceeding. To hold that it can now be raised and determined would be to overrule Burgess v. Stribling. We refer to that case for a discussion of the question and the authorities. It is not important to discuss the other questions raised. It is sufficient to say that the ruling of the court below thereon is correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Blair, Montgomery, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.W. 421, 144 Mich. 532, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 1085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-stribling-mich-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack