Gibbs v. Montcalm Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Gibbs v. Montcalm Circuit Judge

82 N.W. 245, 123 Mich. 615, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 874

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 3, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 245 (Gibbs v. Montcalm Circuit Judge) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 245, 123 Mich. 615, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-montcalm-circuit-judge-mich-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack