Ryan v. Mills

Michigan Supreme Court

Ryan v. Mills

88 N.W. 392, 129 Mich. 170, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 905

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 21, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 88 N.W. 392 (Ryan v. Mills) 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

Ryan v. Mills, 88 N.W. 392, 129 Mich. 170, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 905 (Mich. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. Defendant’s counsel urged that defendant, by entering upon another term, had obtained the right of occupancy for a year, and was entitled to one year’s notice before complainant could legally proceed to terminate the tenancy. The court held that the case was controlled by Teft v. Hinchman, 76 Mich. 672 (43 N. W. 680), and in this it was correct.

2. Upon the hearing before the commissioner, defendant moved to quash the proceedings for the reason that a chancery suit was pending between the parties, involving the same cause of action, and in which an injunction was asked for by the defendant here and complainant in the chancery suit against the complainant here, who was the defendant there. At the trial in the circuit court defend-. ant renewed the motion. The court correctly held that the defense of a. former, suit pending could not be raised in this way, but only by a plea in abatement, which must be verified.

Judgment is affirmed.

Montgomery, C. J., Hooker and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). 1. Defendant’s counsel urged that defendant, by entering upon another term, had obtained the right of occupancy for a year, and was entitled to one year’s notice before complainant could legally proceed to terminate the tenancy. The court held that the case was controlled by Teft v. Hinchman, 76 Mich. 672 (43 N. W. 680), and in this it was correct.

2. Upon the hearing before the commissioner, defendant moved to quash the proceedings for the reason that a chancery suit was pending between the parties, involving the same cause of action, and in which an injunction was asked for by the defendant here and complainant in the chancery suit against the complainant here, who was the defendant there. At the trial in the circuit court defend-. ant renewed the motion. The court correctly held that the defense of a. former, suit pending could not be raised in this way, but only by a plea in abatement, which must be verified.

Judgment is affirmed.

Montgomery, C. J., Hooker and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.W. 392, 129 Mich. 170, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-mills-mich-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack