Metheany v. Kent Circuit Judge

106 N.W. 147, 142 Mich. 628, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 571
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 1906
DocketCalendar No. 21,381
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 N.W. 147 (Metheany v. Kent Circuit Judge) 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
Metheany v. Kent Circuit Judge, 106 N.W. 147, 142 Mich. 628, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 571 (Mich. 1906).

Opinion

Grant, J.

{after stating the facts). The contempt proceedings are entirely regular until the order holding the relator guilty of contempt. The statute (3 Comp. Laws, § 10909) requires interrogatories to be filed where the defendant has been brought into, and has appeared before, the court, which interrogatories must specify the facts and circumstances alleged against the defendant, and require his answer thereto. It is a fatal error not to comply with this statute. Latimer v. Barmore, 81 Mich. 592, 605. Unless, therefore, the filing of interrogatories was waived, the learned circuit judge was-in error.

We think the court was right in holding that the rules and sections 198-203, 1 Comp. Laws, do not abrogate the usual proceedings for contempt in courts of chancery. But section 10909 does apply to these proceedings in chancery. We do not think the record shows that relator waived them. By insisting that the rules and sections 198-203 control the proceedings, relator did not waive his [631]*631right to have the proceedings afterwards conducted under section 10909, if the court should rule against him.

We think the circuit judge was correct in holding that the affidavit of the relator, made when ordered to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, was too indefinite and evasive, and justified him in disregarding -it, and required further proceedings by the use of interrogatories.

The writ will issue setting aside the order, and allowing further proceedings in accordance with the statute, should the lumber company desire it.

McAlvay, Blair, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

State v. Dufek
49 ND 851 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 N.W. 147, 142 Mich. 628, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metheany-v-kent-circuit-judge-mich-1906.