Moore v. Olin

Michigan Supreme Court

Moore v. Olin

6 Mich. 328, 1859 Mich. LEXIS 18

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 6 Mich. 328 (Moore v. Olin) 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

Moore v. Olin, 6 Mich. 328, 1859 Mich. LEXIS 18 (Mich. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chief Justice;

This Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of this motion. The statute (§3597, Comp. L.) requires the party claiming an appeal in chancery to execute a bond conditioned to perform the decree of this Cdurt, &c. The penalty of [329]*329this bond is to be fixed, and the sureties approved, by a judge or circuit court commissioner. The power vested in these officers is exclusive; and to entertain this motion, or any other of a kindred nature, would be, in reality, the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction not vested in the Court. If the bond were solely to secure the payment of costs, the rule might be different, for courts may have power over this subject independent of statutory provisions.

However desirable it may be that the power should be vested in this Court to review the judgment of the officer fixing the penalty of the bond and approving the sureties, we can not exercise such a power without legislation authorizing it.

Motion denied.

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

The Chief Justice;

This Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of this motion. The statute (§3597, Comp. L.) requires the party claiming an appeal in chancery to execute a bond conditioned to perform the decree of this Cdurt, &c. The penalty of [329]*329this bond is to be fixed, and the sureties approved, by a judge or circuit court commissioner. The power vested in these officers is exclusive; and to entertain this motion, or any other of a kindred nature, would be, in reality, the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction not vested in the Court. If the bond were solely to secure the payment of costs, the rule might be different, for courts may have power over this subject independent of statutory provisions.

However desirable it may be that the power should be vested in this Court to review the judgment of the officer fixing the penalty of the bond and approving the sureties, we can not exercise such a power without legislation authorizing it.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Mich. 328, 1859 Mich. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-olin-mich-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack