Cartwright v. Johnston

68 N.W. 144, 110 Mich. 312, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 707
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided July 21, 1896·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Grant, J.

{after .stating the facts). It is -unnecessary to state the grounds upon which the defendant company asks relief. It was a nominal party, made necessary only to secure to the complainants the money due them on the judgment. The decree settled the entire controversy between complainants and Johnston. At that time the defendant company had not appeared in the suit. The decree operated as a discontinuance of the chancery suit so far as it concerned the insurance company. The injunction was dissolved, and the company was left to pursue such further remedy as it deemed advisable by independent suit. Widner v. Lane, 14 Mich. 124; Comstock v. Comstock, 24 Mich. 39.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Cartwright v. Johnston, 68 N.W. 144, 110 Mich. 312, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 707 (Mich. 1896).

68 N.W. 144 (Cartwright v. Johnston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Farmers' Fire Insurance v. Johnston
71 N.W. 1074 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)