Prentis v. Rice, Ring, & Shoemaker

2 Doug. 296
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1846
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Doug. 296 (Prentis v. Rice, Ring, & Shoemaker) 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
Prentis v. Rice, Ring, & Shoemaker, 2 Doug. 296 (Mich. 1846).

Opinion

Goodwin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A bill of complaint was filed by the complainant, as assignee, to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant Rice, to the defendant Ring, and a final decree was taken pro confesso, on the 20th March, 1844, for the sale of the premises, to satisfy the amount due. In September, 1844, the defendant Shoemaker presented a petition to the chancellor to set aside this decree, and for leave to put in an answer and defend; alledging facts in excuse of the default, and equitable considerations for the interposition of the chancellor upon the application, and accompanying his petition with affidavits, and an answer to the complainant’s bill. The application was resisted by the complainant, who interposed an answer to the petition, accompanied also with affidavits. Upon consideration of the application, the chancellor, on the 3d of December, 1844, granted the motion permitting Shoemaker to answer and defend in respect to his equities, unless the complainant should elect to assign to him the decree upon payment, by him, to the complainant, of $400, and interest from December 16, 1841, and certain costs in the case. This condition grew out of equities alledged by the defendant Shoemaker, in his petition and answer exhibited on the application.

A motion is made to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that the order appealed from is not “a decree or final order” in the cause, within the meaning of R. S. 1838, p. 379, ^1.21,122.

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

Related

Kingsbury v. Kingsbury
20 Mich. 212 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Doug. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prentis-v-rice-ring-shoemaker-mich-1846.