Daschke v. Schellenberg

82 N.W. 665, 124 Mich. 16, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 457
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided May 2, 1900·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A motion is made to dismiss an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer in chancery. Two grounds are urged:

1. That the order was not an appealable one.

2. That no bond was given.

The statute authorizes an appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer. 1 Comp. Laws 1897, § 549. The rule requiring a specification of cause in all demurrers does not abrogate or enlarge this statute. Appeals may still be taken from an order overruling a demurrer which prior to the rule might have been general. Greenley v. [17] Hovey, 115 Mich. 504 (73 N. W. 808); Robinson v. Kunkleman, 117 Mich. 193 (75 N. W. 451). The ground of demurrer assigned is that the bill was not sworn to. This might have been ground for a general demurrer prior to the adoption of the present rule. 1 Daniell, Ch. Prac. (6th Am. Ed.) 587; 6 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 410.

By an amendment to the statute (1 Comp. Laws 1897, § 550) in 1899, a hond on an appeal is not required, except where a stay of proceedings is sought. Act No. 243, Pub. Acts 1899.

The motion must be denied.

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

Daschke v. Schellenberg, 82 N.W. 665, 124 Mich. 16, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 457 (Mich. 1900).

82 N.W. 665 (Daschke v. Schellenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kerr v. Rupp
107 N.W. 1059 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
Flynn v. Holmes
105 N.W. 875 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)