Trombley v. Klersy

Michigan Supreme Court

Trombley v. Klersy

110 N.W. 940, 147 Mich. 370, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 917

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 5, 1907

DocketDocket No. 39

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 N.W. 940 (Trombley v. Klersy) 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

Trombley v. Klersy, 110 N.W. 940, 147 Mich. 370, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 917 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

The complainant purchased the premises at a foreclosure sale, held March 19, 1906. The order nisi of confirmation was filed on that day, and was made absolute by an order of court on April 9, 1906. The question now before us arises upon an application for a writ of assistance.

The petition was filed September 21, 1906, and we are asked to hold that this was before the expiration of the period fixed by statute for redemption; it being contended that the statutory period of six months did not begin to run until the order of confirmation was made absolute by the order of the court on April 9th. The statute provides for a redemption within “six months from the time of such sale.” Act No. 200, Pub. Acts 1899, §§ 111, 118. This language is not ambiguous, and should be held to mean what it plainly says. The time of sale does not mean “time when the sale is confirmed.” [371]*371Under counsel’s contention the six-months period could not begin to run until all questions that might arise over the order nisi should be finally settled.

As this is the only question properly raised by the record, it is only necessary to add that the order is affirmed, with costs.

MoAlvay, C. J., and Carpenter, Grant, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Hooker, J.

The complainant purchased the premises at a foreclosure sale, held March 19, 1906. The order nisi of confirmation was filed on that day, and was made absolute by an order of court on April 9, 1906. The question now before us arises upon an application for a writ of assistance.

The petition was filed September 21, 1906, and we are asked to hold that this was before the expiration of the period fixed by statute for redemption; it being contended that the statutory period of six months did not begin to run until the order of confirmation was made absolute by the order of the court on April 9th. The statute provides for a redemption within “six months from the time of such sale.” Act No. 200, Pub. Acts 1899, §§ 111, 118. This language is not ambiguous, and should be held to mean what it plainly says. The time of sale does not mean “time when the sale is confirmed.” [371]*371Under counsel’s contention the six-months period could not begin to run until all questions that might arise over the order nisi should be finally settled.

As this is the only question properly raised by the record, it is only necessary to add that the order is affirmed, with costs.

MoAlvay, C. J., and Carpenter, Grant, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 N.W. 940, 147 Mich. 370, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trombley-v-klersy-mich-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack