Toner v. Toner

Michigan Supreme Court

Toner v. Toner

115 N.W. 712, 151 Mich. 696, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 664

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 31, 1908

DocketDocket No. 145

StatusPublished

This text of 115 N.W. 712 (Toner v. Toner) 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

Toner v. Toner, 115 N.W. 712, 151 Mich. 696, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 664 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). We find it" unnecessary to discuss the second and third assignments, of error, or to determine the correctness of the conclusion. [699]*699reached by the learned circuit judge thereon. His conclusion on the first assignment of error is sound.

Pecard v. Peter Home & Co., 91 Mich. 346, does not control this case. There upon an appeal to the circuit court a money judgment was rendered against the claimant, and it was held that the statute did not contemplate such a judgment. The only judgment provided for is one which shall conclude the claimant from setting up any further claim to the funds or the property. The judgment in this case is not inconsistent with that decision.. Here no money judgment was rendered, but only a judgment for the value of 375 bushels of potatoes. It appears that afterwards the potatoes were sold and the amount realized therefrom applied upon the plaintiff’s judgment against the defendant in the principal suit. While the language of the justice is unfortunate, it is apparent that he did not intend to render a money judgment against the claimant; neither did he, for no amount was specified, but he did intend to find that the claimant had no title to the property and to provide for its disposal according to the statute. The final disposition of the property was in accordance with this finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Montgomery, Ostrander, Hooker, and Carpenter, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). We find it" unnecessary to discuss the second and third assignments, of error, or to determine the correctness of the conclusion. [699]*699reached by the learned circuit judge thereon. His conclusion on the first assignment of error is sound.

Pecard v. Peter Home & Co., 91 Mich. 346, does not control this case. There upon an appeal to the circuit court a money judgment was rendered against the claimant, and it was held that the statute did not contemplate such a judgment. The only judgment provided for is one which shall conclude the claimant from setting up any further claim to the funds or the property. The judgment in this case is not inconsistent with that decision.. Here no money judgment was rendered, but only a judgment for the value of 375 bushels of potatoes. It appears that afterwards the potatoes were sold and the amount realized therefrom applied upon the plaintiff’s judgment against the defendant in the principal suit. While the language of the justice is unfortunate, it is apparent that he did not intend to render a money judgment against the claimant; neither did he, for no amount was specified, but he did intend to find that the claimant had no title to the property and to provide for its disposal according to the statute. The final disposition of the property was in accordance with this finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Montgomery, Ostrander, Hooker, and Carpenter, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 N.W. 712, 151 Mich. 696, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toner-v-toner-mich-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack