Chapin v. Perrin

8 N.W. 721, 46 Mich. 130, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 532
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 27, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 8 N.W. 721 (Chapin v. Perrin) 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
Chapin v. Perrin, 8 N.W. 721, 46 Mich. 130, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 532 (Mich. 1881).

Opinion

Cooley, J.

This is an appeal in chancery. From the record it appears that the appeal is taken from a decree entered in pursuance of the following stipulation which is signed by the solicitors: “ It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the solicitors in above entitled cause: 1st. That as the jurisdiction of this court is in doubt, and for the purpose of settling said jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, the demurrer of defendant Andrew Perrin to the bill of complaint may be sustained by the court, and the bill dismissed without prejudice and without costs of any kind to either party; and said complainant agrees to appeal said suit for the purpose above set forth, and upon the conditions hereinafter stated. 2d. That in appealing said suit to the Supreme Court, each party agrees to pay their own costs, and that no costs will be taxed by either party for any costs made by him by reason of said appeal. 3d. It is agreed that, this stipulation may be filed with the court in lieu of the appeal bond required by the statute in chancery appeals, and to operate and have the same effect as such bond.”

[131]*131Appeals bring np for review some action of the court below which is complained of as erroneous. In this case there has been no such action. The chancery court has performed no judicial act whatever, except what is implied in permitting a consent order to be entered. But neither party can complain of a consent order, for the error in it, if there is any, is their own, and not the error of the court. It follows that there is nothing to appeal from, and the ease must be dismissed and the record remanded.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

In Re Pawloski Minors
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2025
20241206_C363572_41_363572.Opn.Pdf
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2024
Bryan Gallagher v. Northland Farms LLC
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015
Kruger v. Martin
293 N.W.2d 667 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1980)
Tomkiw v. Sauceda
132 N.W.2d 125 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1965)
Dora v. Lesinski
88 N.W.2d 592 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1958)
Campbell v. Rose Street Improvement Co.
194 N.W. 574 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Campau v. Lockwood
192 N.W. 545 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1923)
Montgomery v. Montgomery
190 N.W. 687 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Hart v. State Fire Marshal
146 N.W. 169 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Gorman v. Patrick Hirsch Co.
138 N.W. 1079 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Cameron v. Smith
137 N.W. 265 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Weber v. Costigan
102 N.W. 666 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)
Omaha Fire Insurance v. Maxwell, Sharp & Ross Co.
56 N.W. 1028 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 N.W. 721, 46 Mich. 130, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapin-v-perrin-mich-1881.