Crawford v. Tuller

Michigan Supreme Court

Crawford v. Tuller

35 Mich. 57, 1876 Mich. LEXIS 233

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 35 Mich. 57 (Crawford v. Tuller) 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

Crawford v. Tuller, 35 Mich. 57, 1876 Mich. LEXIS 233 (Mich. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooley, Ch. J.:

This is a petition to set aside a decree and sale in a forecloseure case. The sale was made in 1859. The petitioner, who was proceeded against as a non-resident mortgagor, insists that the court never obtained jurisdiction because of certain defects which need not be specified. She also claims that she never gave the mortgage on which the decree was rendered. The complainant in the case is alleged to have deceased soon after the sale was made, and the land is claimed and occupied by a third party.

We held in the case of Hill v. Robinson, decided last term (not reported), that a party attacking a judicial sale as invalid after the rights of a third party had accrued, should be required to do so by some original proceeding in which an issue could be formed and tried in the ordinary way. The ruling is applicable here. If the petitioner is right in her allegation that she never gave the mortgage, she has her remedy by ejectment, and perhaps by bill in equity; if she gave the mortgage, but the proceedings against her are invalid, a bill to redeem might be the appropriate remedy. But *without indicating the particular course which the petitioner should take, it is sufficient to say on this petition that the rights of third persons are not to be adjudicated in this summary manner. They must be brought into court as parties in some regular form.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.

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

Cooley, Ch. J.:

This is a petition to set aside a decree and sale in a forecloseure case. The sale was made in 1859. The petitioner, who was proceeded against as a non-resident mortgagor, insists that the court never obtained jurisdiction because of certain defects which need not be specified. She also claims that she never gave the mortgage on which the decree was rendered. The complainant in the case is alleged to have deceased soon after the sale was made, and the land is claimed and occupied by a third party.

We held in the case of Hill v. Robinson, decided last term (not reported), that a party attacking a judicial sale as invalid after the rights of a third party had accrued, should be required to do so by some original proceeding in which an issue could be formed and tried in the ordinary way. The ruling is applicable here. If the petitioner is right in her allegation that she never gave the mortgage, she has her remedy by ejectment, and perhaps by bill in equity; if she gave the mortgage, but the proceedings against her are invalid, a bill to redeem might be the appropriate remedy. But *without indicating the particular course which the petitioner should take, it is sufficient to say on this petition that the rights of third persons are not to be adjudicated in this summary manner. They must be brought into court as parties in some regular form.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Mich. 57, 1876 Mich. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-tuller-mich-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack