Muller v. Sulkiwskyj

Michigan Court of Appeals

Muller v. Sulkiwskyj

169 N.W.2d 481, 17 Mich. App. 373, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1205

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 26, 1969

DocketDocket No. 6,381

StatusPublished

This text of 169 N.W.2d 481 (Muller v. Sulkiwskyj) 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

Muller v. Sulkiwskyj, 169 N.W.2d 481, 17 Mich. App. 373, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1205 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Wayne county circuit court wherein plaintiffs’ civil action seeking to set aside a former judgment on the grounds of fraud was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata. On appeal it is contended that a separate action to set aside a former judg[374]*374ment may properly be maintained when grounded on an allegation of fraud. The appellees have filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, if true, support a finding of intrinsic fraud which is insufficient to set aside the former judgment. Fawcett v. Atherton (1941), 298 Mich 362. It is manifest that the questions sought to be reviewed are unsubstantial and require' no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Wayne county circuit court wherein plaintiffs’ civil action seeking to set aside a former judgment on the grounds of fraud was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata. On appeal it is contended that a separate action to set aside a former judg[374]*374ment may properly be maintained when grounded on an allegation of fraud. The appellees have filed a motion to affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, if true, support a finding of intrinsic fraud which is insufficient to set aside the former judgment. Fawcett v. Atherton (1941), 298 Mich 362. It is manifest that the questions sought to be reviewed are unsubstantial and require' no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 N.W.2d 481, 17 Mich. App. 373, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muller-v-sulkiwskyj-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack