Patterson v. Albert

Michigan Supreme Court

Patterson v. Albert

274 Mich. 469

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 31, 1936

DocketDocket No. 77, Calendar No. 38,523

StatusPublished

This text of 274 Mich. 469 (Patterson v. Albert) 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

Patterson v. Albert, 274 Mich. 469 (Mich. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

When this ease was here in Patterson v. Albert, 267 Mich. 40, where the facts will sufficiently appear, the decree of the trial court was modified and the case remanded to amend the decree in accordance with the opinion of this court. Before the amended decree was entered by the trial court, defendant made an application for a moratorium. This application was denied, and defendant appeals.

[470]*470The trial court held under the facts it would not grant a moratorium. The granting of a moratorium is permissive, depending upon the discretion of the court, and not a matter of right. Ciotte v. Ullrich, 267 Mich. 136. We cannot find under the facts in this case the trial court abused his discretion.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

North, C. J., and Fead, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Edward M. Sharpe, and Toy, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

When this ease was here in Patterson v. Albert, 267 Mich. 40, where the facts will sufficiently appear, the decree of the trial court was modified and the case remanded to amend the decree in accordance with the opinion of this court. Before the amended decree was entered by the trial court, defendant made an application for a moratorium. This application was denied, and defendant appeals.

[470]*470The trial court held under the facts it would not grant a moratorium. The granting of a moratorium is permissive, depending upon the discretion of the court, and not a matter of right. Ciotte v. Ullrich, 267 Mich. 136. We cannot find under the facts in this case the trial court abused his discretion.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

North, C. J., and Fead, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Edward M. Sharpe, and Toy, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 Mich. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-albert-mich-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack