Kerrigan v. Saginaw County Drain Commissioner

Michigan Court of Appeals

Kerrigan v. Saginaw County Drain Commissioner

162 N.W.2d 289, 12 Mich. App. 127, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1165

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,447

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 N.W.2d 289 (Kerrigan v. Saginaw County Drain Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerrigan v. Saginaw County Drain Commissioner, 162 N.W.2d 289, 12 Mich. App. 127, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1165 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

Quinn, J.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s grant of writ of mandamus requiring defendant to comply with an ex parte order of the probate court issued on plaintiff’s appeal from the order and review of apportionments made by defendant in a drain proceeding. The latter appeal was pursuant to CLS 1961, § 280.155 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 11-.1155). Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and the probate court has never ruled on that motion. On this record, plaintiff has no clear legal right to the enforcement of the ex parte order of the probate court, nor does defendant have a legal duty to perform it. Janigian v. City of Dearborn (1953), 336 Mich 261. The writ of mandamus should not have been granted.

■ Reversed and plaintiff’s complaint for mandamus is dismissed, with costs to defendant.

McIntyre, J., concurred with Quinn, J.

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

Quinn, J.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s grant of writ of mandamus requiring defendant to comply with an ex parte order of the probate court issued on plaintiff’s appeal from the order and review of apportionments made by defendant in a drain proceeding. The latter appeal was pursuant to CLS 1961, § 280.155 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 11-.1155). Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and the probate court has never ruled on that motion. On this record, plaintiff has no clear legal right to the enforcement of the ex parte order of the probate court, nor does defendant have a legal duty to perform it. Janigian v. City of Dearborn (1953), 336 Mich 261. The writ of mandamus should not have been granted.

■ Reversed and plaintiff’s complaint for mandamus is dismissed, with costs to defendant.

McIntyre, J., concurred with Quinn, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.W.2d 289, 12 Mich. App. 127, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerrigan-v-saginaw-county-drain-commissioner-michctapp-1968.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack