Rose v. Aaron

Michigan Supreme Court

Rose v. Aaron

76 N.W.2d 829, 345 Mich. 613, 1956 Mich. LEXIS 416

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1956

DocketDocket 21, Calendar 46,707

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 76 N.W.2d 829 (Rose v. Aaron) 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

Rose v. Aaron, 76 N.W.2d 829, 345 Mich. 613, 1956 Mich. LEXIS 416 (Mich. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, C. J.

Plaintiff filed a bill of complaint, the prayer of which asked for no other relief than a temporary and permanent injunction restraining defendant from receiving gifts from, associating with, or visiting plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order granting such relief. Thereafter plaintiff obtained an order requiring defendant to show cause why he should ¡not be punished for contempt for violation of the restraining order. Upon hearing thereon, defendant was found guilty of contempt in the manner stated and sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and pay costs of $50. From the order finding defendant guilty of contempt and imposing the sentence, he appeals.

Under our holding in Hadley v. Hadley, 323 Mich 555, plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed, the temporary restraining order should not have issued, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and dissolve the temporary restraining order, denied by the trial court, should have been granted.

*615 Although the temporary restraining order was improperly granted, it should have been obeyed until dissolved and the court had the power to punish disobedience thereof as for contempt. Holland v. Weed, 87 Mich 584, 588; Phillips v. City of Detroit, 2 Flip 92, 99 (Fed Cas No 11,101). Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to reversal of the order from which he appeals nor to costs. That order further, provided, however, that the sentence therein specified be suspended to permit an appeal here, failing in which defendant was to he required to present himself to the trial court “for re-sentence.” In line, with the- reasoning in Holland v. Weed, supra, we do not think, in view of the circumstances of this case and the provisions of the lower court’s order, that that court is called upon to protect its dignity by resentencing defendant for violation of a temporary restraining order improperly entered.

An order may enter here dissolving the restraining order and dismissing plaintiff’s hill of complaint. No costs.

Sharpe, Smith, Boyles, Kelly, Carr, and Black, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Reid took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Dethmers, C. J.

Plaintiff filed a bill of complaint, the prayer of which asked for no other relief than a temporary and permanent injunction restraining defendant from receiving gifts from, associating with, or visiting plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order granting such relief. Thereafter plaintiff obtained an order requiring defendant to show cause why he should ¡not be punished for contempt for violation of the restraining order. Upon hearing thereon, defendant was found guilty of contempt in the manner stated and sentenced to serve 30 days in the county jail and pay costs of $50. From the order finding defendant guilty of contempt and imposing the sentence, he appeals.

Under our holding in Hadley v. Hadley, 323 Mich 555, plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed, the temporary restraining order should not have issued, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and dissolve the temporary restraining order, denied by the trial court, should have been granted.

*615 Although the temporary restraining order was improperly granted, it should have been obeyed until dissolved and the court had the power to punish disobedience thereof as for contempt. Holland v. Weed, 87 Mich 584, 588; Phillips v. City of Detroit, 2 Flip 92, 99 (Fed Cas No 11,101). Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to reversal of the order from which he appeals nor to costs. That order further, provided, however, that the sentence therein specified be suspended to permit an appeal here, failing in which defendant was to he required to present himself to the trial court “for re-sentence.” In line, with the- reasoning in Holland v. Weed, supra, we do not think, in view of the circumstances of this case and the provisions of the lower court’s order, that that court is called upon to protect its dignity by resentencing defendant for violation of a temporary restraining order improperly entered.

An order may enter here dissolving the restraining order and dismissing plaintiff’s hill of complaint. No costs.

Sharpe, Smith, Boyles, Kelly, Carr, and Black, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Reid took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.W.2d 829, 345 Mich. 613, 1956 Mich. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-aaron-mich-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack