Gibbs v. Montcalm Circuit Judge

82 N.W. 245, 123 Mich. 615, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 874
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 3, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The statute referred to (3 Comp. Laws 1897, § 9541) provides that “the assigned property and assets * * * shall be sold at public auction or at private sale, as the circuit court in chancery or the circuit judge at chambers * * * may direct,” and further provides the time within which this shall be done. The object of the statute is to provide for a speedy sale of assigned assets, and foiqdistribution among creditors. It is designed for the benefit of creditors, and not for the debtors of the assignor. Defendant was not in position to raise the question. It is no concern of his whether the relator or his vendee brings suit. His obligation to pay is the same in either event. As long as the creditors raise no objection to the conduct of the assignee, Mr. Van Ness cannot. Butler v. Wendell, 57 Mich. 62 (23 N. W. 460, 58 Am. Rep. 329); Munro v. Meech, 94 Mich. 600 (54 N. W. 290).

The writ will issue.

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

Gibbs v. Montcalm Circuit Judge, 82 N.W. 245, 123 Mich. 615, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 874 (Mich. 1900).

82 N.W. 245 (Gibbs v. Montcalm Circuit Judge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
268 P. 549 (Montana Supreme Court, 1928)
Lobenstein v. Whitehead & Kales Iron Co.
146 N.W. 293 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Haas
74 N.E. 1003 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Kenney v. Meddaugh
118 F. 209 (Sixth Circuit, 1902)