Conlon v. State Treasurer

Michigan Court of Appeals

Conlon v. State Treasurer

179 N.W.2d 208, 23 Mich. App. 646, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1904

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1970

DocketDocket 8,267

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 179 N.W.2d 208 (Conlon v. State Treasurer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conlon v. State Treasurer, 179 N.W.2d 208, 23 Mich. App. 646, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1904 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs, abutting property owners, petitioned Livingston County Circuit Court to alter the plat of “Kirk’s Landing Long Lake” by closing the stub-end of Lakeside Drive on October 29, 1968. After investigation by the Conservation Department and filing of a consent by the Attorney General the petition was granted by judgment dated January 28, 1969. Over nine months later non-abutting lot owners petitioned to intervene and to have the judgment set aside. An order was entered October 1, 1969, granting the petitioners the right to intervene and setting aside the judgment. From this order plaintiffs attempted to appeal by filing a claim of appeal on October 3, 1969.

An order setting aside a judgment is interlocutory and may be reviewed only after grant of leave to appeal by this Court. An order setting aside a judgment has the same effect as an order granting a new trial and the latter is reviewable only by way of leave to appeal. MCLA § 600.308 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 27A.308), GCR 1963, 801, 806. Benmark v. Steffen (1968), 9 Mich App 416; Solner Investment Company v. Thoms (1966), 2 Mich App 189; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Holmes (1966), 2 Mich App 190; see also, 3 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 193.

No application for leave to appeal was filed in this case, and this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

*648 “When a court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter, any action with respect to such a cause, other than to dismiss it, is absolutely void.” Fox v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (1965), 375 Mich 238, 242; Standard Building Products Company v. Woodland Building Company (1965), 1 Mich App 434; City of Dearborn v. Pulte-Strang, Inc. (1968), 12 Mich App 161; Earp v. City of Detroit (1968), 11 Mich App 659; Hope v. Weiss (1968), 12 Mich App 404; Chevrolet Local 659, UAW-CIO v. Reliance Insurance Companies (1970), 21 Mich App 123.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs, appellees not having initiated a motion to dismiss pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs, abutting property owners, petitioned Livingston County Circuit Court to alter the plat of “Kirk’s Landing Long Lake” by closing the stub-end of Lakeside Drive on October 29, 1968. After investigation by the Conservation Department and filing of a consent by the Attorney General the petition was granted by judgment dated January 28, 1969. Over nine months later non-abutting lot owners petitioned to intervene and to have the judgment set aside. An order was entered October 1, 1969, granting the petitioners the right to intervene and setting aside the judgment. From this order plaintiffs attempted to appeal by filing a claim of appeal on October 3, 1969.

An order setting aside a judgment is interlocutory and may be reviewed only after grant of leave to appeal by this Court. An order setting aside a judgment has the same effect as an order granting a new trial and the latter is reviewable only by way of leave to appeal. MCLA § 600.308 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 27A.308), GCR 1963, 801, 806. Benmark v. Steffen (1968), 9 Mich App 416; Solner Investment Company v. Thoms (1966), 2 Mich App 189; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Holmes (1966), 2 Mich App 190; see also, 3 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 193.

No application for leave to appeal was filed in this case, and this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

*648 “When a court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter, any action with respect to such a cause, other than to dismiss it, is absolutely void.” Fox v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan (1965), 375 Mich 238, 242; Standard Building Products Company v. Woodland Building Company (1965), 1 Mich App 434; City of Dearborn v. Pulte-Strang, Inc. (1968), 12 Mich App 161; Earp v. City of Detroit (1968), 11 Mich App 659; Hope v. Weiss (1968), 12 Mich App 404; Chevrolet Local 659, UAW-CIO v. Reliance Insurance Companies (1970), 21 Mich App 123.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs, appellees not having initiated a motion to dismiss pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 N.W.2d 208, 23 Mich. App. 646, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conlon-v-state-treasurer-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack