Liquidating Holding Corp. v. Mortgage & Contract Co.

260 Mich. 395
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Liquidating Holding Corp. v. Mortgage & Contract Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 258 Mich. 476
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided October 28, 1932·No. Docket No. 126, Calendar No. 36,455·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from taxation of costs and involves an item of $631.56, premium on an appeal bond, given to stay proceedings and to pay the judgment if not reversed.

The judgment was reversed and a new trial granted, and plaintiff contends that, under our holding in Caswell v. Stearns, 259 Mich. 445, the premium on the bond cannot be taxed as costs. In the Caswell Case no execution could have issued on the [396]*396judgment, and the only stay was against certifying the judgment to the probate court. Such is not this case. The rule applied in Behr v. Baker, 257 Mich. 487, governs, and the taxation by the clerk is affirmed, with costs to defendant.

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

Liquidating Holding Corp. v. Mortgage & Contract Co., 260 Mich. 395 (Mich. 1932).

260 Mich. 395 (Liquidating Holding Corp. v. Mortgage & Contract Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caswell v. Stearns
243 N.W. 255 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)
Behr v. Baker
241 N.W. 229 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1931)