Union Trust Co. v. Marsh

Michigan Supreme Court

Union Trust Co. v. Marsh

241 N.W. 901, 257 Mich. 698, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 900

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1932

DocketDocket No. 153, Calendar No. 36,221.

StatusPublished

This text of 241 N.W. 901 (Union Trust Co. v. Marsh) 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

Union Trust Co. v. Marsh, 241 N.W. 901, 257 Mich. 698, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 900 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Following the filing of the opinion of this court in Union Trust Co. v. Marsh, 255 Mich. 362, the attorneys for the receiver filed petition for substitution of attorneys, that receiver be authorized to employ other counsel, and for order allowing compensation for services rendered as attorneys for receiver from and after November 3, 1930.

Due notice of hearing the petition was given. On the day there was no appearance except for the petitioner. The matter was set for hearing October 21, 1931, and it was heard and an order entered allowing and fixing the compensation, from which- Ella B. Marsh has appealed. The appeal is destitute of merit. It is urged the services were not rendered, and that the amounts charged are excessive, exorbitant, and unreasonable. Appellant had opportunity to contest at the hearing and did not. Excuse for her failure to do so is not even attempted. At the hearing a vice-president of the receiver testified that charges were fair. A reputable attorney of the Detroit bar gave like testimony, and one of the attorneys for.receiver proved the account and claim. No counter showing was made. Clearly, the order is well supported. Union Trust Co. v. Marsh, supra.

Other matter suggested by appellant is not pertinent.

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ.s concurred.

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

Clark, C. J.

Following the filing of the opinion of this court in Union Trust Co. v. Marsh, 255 Mich. 362, the attorneys for the receiver filed petition for substitution of attorneys, that receiver be authorized to employ other counsel, and for order allowing compensation for services rendered as attorneys for receiver from and after November 3, 1930.

Due notice of hearing the petition was given. On the day there was no appearance except for the petitioner. The matter was set for hearing October 21, 1931, and it was heard and an order entered allowing and fixing the compensation, from which- Ella B. Marsh has appealed. The appeal is destitute of merit. It is urged the services were not rendered, and that the amounts charged are excessive, exorbitant, and unreasonable. Appellant had opportunity to contest at the hearing and did not. Excuse for her failure to do so is not even attempted. At the hearing a vice-president of the receiver testified that charges were fair. A reputable attorney of the Detroit bar gave like testimony, and one of the attorneys for.receiver proved the account and claim. No counter showing was made. Clearly, the order is well supported. Union Trust Co. v. Marsh, supra.

Other matter suggested by appellant is not pertinent.

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ.s concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W. 901, 257 Mich. 698, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-trust-co-v-marsh-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack