Strempek v. Leszczewicz

Michigan Supreme Court

Strempek v. Leszczewicz

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

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1936

DocketDocket No. 17, Calendar No. 38,957.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 N.W. 696 (Strempek v. Leszczewicz) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 N.W. 696, 278 Mich. 320, 1936 Mich. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strempek-v-leszczewicz-mich-1936.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack