Wierengo v. Mason

Michigan Supreme Court

Wierengo v. Mason

74 N.W. 183, 115 Mich. 646, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 605

DecidedFebruary 16, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 74 N.W. 183 (Wierengo v. Mason) 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

Wierengo v. Mason, 74 N.W. 183, 115 Mich. 646, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 605 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Moore, J.

This is a proceeding to enjoin the prosecution of an action at law in which Lyman G. Mason is plaintiff, and the estate of Andrew Wierengo is defendant, in which case a new trial was granted in May, 1897. Mason v. Wierengo's Estate, 113 Mich. 151. A reference to that case will make it unnecessary to make a de[647]*647tailed statement here. When the litigation was here before, it was held that, under the conceded facts of the case, Mr. Mason was entitled • to recover. It is not claimed that conditions have changed, or -that the facts are different upon this record from what they were in the other, but it is said that the opinion in that case was rendered, though it worked a hardship, because the law was technical and inelástic, and that equity will grant relief against the strict, rigid, and oppressive rules of the common law, and that it ought to intervene here.

We never have understood that where a court at law has jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties, and one of them has a cause-of action against the other, given to him by the well-settled rules of law, equity will intervene because in the individual case a hardship will be done. We do not believe this is the province of a court of chancery. Without discussing the claim of counsel in detail, we content ourselves with citing 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 46, 47; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 18, 19.

We think the court very properly dismissed the bill of complaint. The decree is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Moore, J.

This is a proceeding to enjoin the prosecution of an action at law in which Lyman G. Mason is plaintiff, and the estate of Andrew Wierengo is defendant, in which case a new trial was granted in May, 1897. Mason v. Wierengo's Estate, 113 Mich. 151. A reference to that case will make it unnecessary to make a de[647]*647tailed statement here. When the litigation was here before, it was held that, under the conceded facts of the case, Mr. Mason was entitled • to recover. It is not claimed that conditions have changed, or -that the facts are different upon this record from what they were in the other, but it is said that the opinion in that case was rendered, though it worked a hardship, because the law was technical and inelástic, and that equity will grant relief against the strict, rigid, and oppressive rules of the common law, and that it ought to intervene here.

We never have understood that where a court at law has jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties, and one of them has a cause-of action against the other, given to him by the well-settled rules of law, equity will intervene because in the individual case a hardship will be done. We do not believe this is the province of a court of chancery. Without discussing the claim of counsel in detail, we content ourselves with citing 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 46, 47; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 18, 19.

We think the court very properly dismissed the bill of complaint. The decree is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.W. 183, 115 Mich. 646, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wierengo-v-mason-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack