Kaminski v. Steinhebel

Michigan Supreme Court

Kaminski v. Steinhebel

265 Mich. 237

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1933

DocketDocket No. 99, Calendar No. 37,311

StatusPublished

This text of 265 Mich. 237 (Kaminski v. Steinhebel) 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

Kaminski v. Steinhebel, 265 Mich. 237 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Weadock, J.

In a chancery foreclosure of a land contract a personal decree against defendant Julia Steinhebel was sought by notice in the summons and a deficiency judgment, if any, was asked in the bill of complaint. Defendant answered by her attorney,, who did not appear on the hearing. A decree was granted plaintiff, fixing the amount due at $5,513.66, ordering sale which was made by circuit court commissioner, whose report of same was confirmed.

A petition was filed and granted for the sum of $2,681.08, by a decretal order, filed December 24, [238]*2381932, and defendant appealed because a deficiency was not asked for in the summons.

The decree and decretal order appealed from is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Weadock, J.

In a chancery foreclosure of a land contract a personal decree against defendant Julia Steinhebel was sought by notice in the summons and a deficiency judgment, if any, was asked in the bill of complaint. Defendant answered by her attorney,, who did not appear on the hearing. A decree was granted plaintiff, fixing the amount due at $5,513.66, ordering sale which was made by circuit court commissioner, whose report of same was confirmed.

A petition was filed and granted for the sum of $2,681.08, by a decretal order, filed December 24, [238]*2381932, and defendant appealed because a deficiency was not asked for in the summons.

The decree and decretal order appealed from is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 Mich. 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminski-v-steinhebel-mich-1933.