Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld

Michigan Supreme Court

Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld

217 N.W. 800, 242 Mich. 33, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 716

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 14, 1928

DocketDocket No. 26.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 N.W. 800 (Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld) 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

Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld, 217 N.W. 800, 242 Mich. 33, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 716 (Mich. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

Philip Hirschfeld and Joseph Hirschfeld are brothers. .They owned real estate in common and they owned personal property, a part of which was devoted to the business in which they were engaged. Two bills were filed seeking in the aggregate partition, division, and accounting. The causes were consolidated. Toward the close of proof Judge Mandell suggested to the litigants, men of mature business experience, and to their counsel, also experienced and reputable' as well, the advisability of settlement. Accordingly, the brothers and their respective counsel met in the office of counsel for plaintiff and agreed upon a settlement. Returning intp court, counsel for plaintiff, with counsel for defendant, in the presence of plaintiff, dictated into the record, in open court, a *34 stipulation for decree, and decree was entered thereon. Later plaintiff developed dissatisfaction, engaged other counsel and has appealed. His appeal is wholly without merit and it presents no question worthy of consideration.

Decree affirmed, with costs to defendant.

North, Fellows, Wiest, McDonald, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. Flannigan, C. J., did not sit. The late Justice Bird took no part in this decision.

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

Clark, J.

Philip Hirschfeld and Joseph Hirschfeld are brothers. .They owned real estate in common and they owned personal property, a part of which was devoted to the business in which they were engaged. Two bills were filed seeking in the aggregate partition, division, and accounting. The causes were consolidated. Toward the close of proof Judge Mandell suggested to the litigants, men of mature business experience, and to their counsel, also experienced and reputable' as well, the advisability of settlement. Accordingly, the brothers and their respective counsel met in the office of counsel for plaintiff and agreed upon a settlement. Returning intp court, counsel for plaintiff, with counsel for defendant, in the presence of plaintiff, dictated into the record, in open court, a *34 stipulation for decree, and decree was entered thereon. Later plaintiff developed dissatisfaction, engaged other counsel and has appealed. His appeal is wholly without merit and it presents no question worthy of consideration.

Decree affirmed, with costs to defendant.

North, Fellows, Wiest, McDonald, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. Flannigan, C. J., did not sit. The late Justice Bird took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 N.W. 800, 242 Mich. 33, 1928 Mich. LEXIS 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-v-hirschfeld-mich-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack