Strempek v. Leszczewicz

Michigan Supreme Court

Strempek v. Leszczewicz

270 N.W. 696, 278 Mich. 320, 1936 Mich. LEXIS 872

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided December 28, 1936·No. Docket No. 17, Calendar No. 38,957.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Appellants were regularly made parties to the suit by cross-bill and personal service of chancery summons on them.Griffin v. Griffin, 112 Mich. 87. Court Rule No. 49 (1933) has no application to the situation.

The record does not indicate that the court abused its discretion in ordering moratorium relief.

Affirmed, with costs.

NORTH, C.J., and WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL and TOY, JJ., concurred with FEAD, J. POTTER, J., did not sit.

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

Appellants were regularly made parties to the suit by cross-bill and personal service of chancery summons on them.Griffin v. Griffin, 112 Mich. 87. Court Rule No. 49 (1933) has no application to the situation.

The record does not indicate that the court abused its discretion in ordering moratorium relief.

Affirmed, with costs.

NORTH, C.J., and WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL and TOY, JJ., concurred with FEAD, J. POTTER, J., did not sit.

Strempek v. Leszczewicz, 270 N.W. 696, 278 Mich. 320, 1936 Mich. LEXIS 872 (Mich. 1936).

Pincite

270 N.W. 696 (Strempek v. Leszczewicz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related