Quail v. Cole

Michigan Supreme Court

Quail v. Cole

245 N.W. 542, 260 Mich. 642, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1192

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 1932

DocketDocket No. 154, Calendar No. 36,716.

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 245 N.W. 542 (Quail v. Cole) 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

Quail v. Cole, 245 N.W. 542, 260 Mich. 642, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 1192 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal, prosecuted as of right, by plaintiff, from an order setting aside a default and judgment.

The record shows that application by plaintiff for leave to appeal was denied by this court. Review, if any, is by mandamus and not by appeal. *Page 643

Counsel invokes the statute, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 15491, and Court Rules Nos. 55 and 60 (1931). The statute relates to final judgments, and plaintiff has no judgment, but seeks direction, by this court, to have his judgment reinstated. The mentioned rules, while requiring mandamus to be termed an appeal, do not change the law that it is an original writ, and that it does not issue without application and allowance.

Leave to prosecute an appeal in the nature of mandamus was necessary and was not obtained. We, therefore, sua sponte, dismiss the appeal.

Defendant, not having filed a brief at the time this opinion was written, will not recover costs.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.

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