Stork v. Stelmack

Michigan Court of Appeals

Stork v. Stelmack

163 N.W.2d 678, 13 Mich. App. 164, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1028

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,025

StatusPublished

This text of 163 N.W.2d 678 (Stork v. Stelmack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stork v. Stelmack, 163 N.W.2d 678, 13 Mich. App. 164, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1028 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An execution and levy was made against certain real property of defendants for the purpose of satisfying plaintiff’s judgment against defendants. Defendants’ motion to cancel the execu[165]*165tion. was gi’anted by the circuit court on the ground that the judgment had been satisfied by a previous execution sale on other property of defendants and from this ruling plaintiff: appeals.

A review of the briefs and record discloses that there was a previous execution sale to plaintiff of real propex'ty of defendants at a bid in excess of the amount of the judgment. Plaintiff’s contention that the prior, executioxi sale is void because of the foreclosure of a prior recorded mortgage is untenable.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Quinn, P. J., and T. K. Kavanagh and Corkin, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

An execution and levy was made against certain real property of defendants for the purpose of satisfying plaintiff’s judgment against defendants. Defendants’ motion to cancel the execu[165]*165tion. was gi’anted by the circuit court on the ground that the judgment had been satisfied by a previous execution sale on other property of defendants and from this ruling plaintiff: appeals.

A review of the briefs and record discloses that there was a previous execution sale to plaintiff of real propex'ty of defendants at a bid in excess of the amount of the judgment. Plaintiff’s contention that the prior, executioxi sale is void because of the foreclosure of a prior recorded mortgage is untenable.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Quinn, P. J., and T. K. Kavanagh and Corkin, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 N.W.2d 678, 13 Mich. App. 164, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stork-v-stelmack-michctapp-1968.