Lord v. Lord

Michigan Supreme Court

Lord v. Lord

86 N.W.2d 818, 350 Mich. 697, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 316

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 24, 1957

DocketDocket No. 27, Calendar No. 47,015

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 86 N.W.2d 818 (Lord v. Lord) 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

Lord v. Lord, 86 N.W.2d 818, 350 Mich. 697, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 316 (Mich. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, C. J.

Plaintiff brought replevin for possession of goods alleged in his declaration to be of the value of $345. Defendant’s answer denied the allegation. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff took an appeal here as of right without leave granted. The record contains no certification by the trial judge that the controversy involves more than $500 as provided in Court Rule No 60, § 1(d) (1945). Defendant has filed no motion to dismiss or brief nor in any way appeared in this Court on this appeal. Under the circumstances we will dismiss on our own motion. Miller v. Johnson, 201 Mich 535. Applicable and adopted as dispositive of this case is the following from Seeley v. Baptist Ministers’ Aid Society, 302 Mich 199:

“No application for leave to appeal having been filed, and no leave having been granted, the appeal is dismissed.

“However, we have examined the records and briefs and are convinced that, if plaintiffs’ appeal were considered on its merits, they could not succeed.

[699]*699“The defendant not having filed motion for such dismissal, no costs will be allowed.”

Sharpe, Smith, Edwards, Voelker, Kelly, Carr, and Black, JJ., concurred

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

Dethmers, C. J.

Plaintiff brought replevin for possession of goods alleged in his declaration to be of the value of $345. Defendant’s answer denied the allegation. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff took an appeal here as of right without leave granted. The record contains no certification by the trial judge that the controversy involves more than $500 as provided in Court Rule No 60, § 1(d) (1945). Defendant has filed no motion to dismiss or brief nor in any way appeared in this Court on this appeal. Under the circumstances we will dismiss on our own motion. Miller v. Johnson, 201 Mich 535. Applicable and adopted as dispositive of this case is the following from Seeley v. Baptist Ministers’ Aid Society, 302 Mich 199:

“No application for leave to appeal having been filed, and no leave having been granted, the appeal is dismissed.

“However, we have examined the records and briefs and are convinced that, if plaintiffs’ appeal were considered on its merits, they could not succeed.

[699]*699“The defendant not having filed motion for such dismissal, no costs will be allowed.”

Sharpe, Smith, Edwards, Voelker, Kelly, Carr, and Black, JJ., concurred

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.W.2d 818, 350 Mich. 697, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lord-v-lord-mich-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack