Woodmansee v. Ann Arbor Brick Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Woodmansee v. Ann Arbor Brick Co.

130 N.W. 311, 164 Mich. 688, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 752

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 13, 1911

DocketDocket No. 111

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 130 N.W. 311 (Woodmansee v. Ann Arbor Brick Co.) 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

Woodmansee v. Ann Arbor Brick Co., 130 N.W. 311, 164 Mich. 688, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 752 (Mich. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Whether the bill states a case for equitable cognizance is a question not presented on this appeal. That the answer does not confess, and does deny, the charges of fraud and mismanagement and insolvency, is clear. The effect of the order is not limited to preserving the assets of the corporation until final decree. The effect is to dispossess the corporation and to deprive it of all title to, and management of, the corporate property. This court has so often declared that such an order, made upon a preliminary hearing, cannot be sustained, that we shall only refer to some of the decisions. McCombs v. Merryhew, 40 Mich. 721, and cases cited in the opinion; Arnold v. Bright, 41 Mich. 207 (2 [692]*692N. W. 16); Tawas, etc., R. Co. v. Iosco Circuit Judge, 44 Mich. 479 (7 N. W. 65); Smith v. Walker, 57 Mich. 456 (22 N. W. 267, 24 N. W. 830, 26 N. W. 783); Hall v. Waywe Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 395 (69 N. W. 643); Goldman v. Manistee Circuit Judge, 155 Mich. 47 (118 N. W. 600). We are referred to no authority to the contrary.

The order appealed from is reversed and set aside, with costs of this appeal to appellants, and the record remanded to the circuit court.

Bird, Hooker, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Whether the bill states a case for equitable cognizance is a question not presented on this appeal. That the answer does not confess, and does deny, the charges of fraud and mismanagement and insolvency, is clear. The effect of the order is not limited to preserving the assets of the corporation until final decree. The effect is to dispossess the corporation and to deprive it of all title to, and management of, the corporate property. This court has so often declared that such an order, made upon a preliminary hearing, cannot be sustained, that we shall only refer to some of the decisions. McCombs v. Merryhew, 40 Mich. 721, and cases cited in the opinion; Arnold v. Bright, 41 Mich. 207 (2 [692]*692N. W. 16); Tawas, etc., R. Co. v. Iosco Circuit Judge, 44 Mich. 479 (7 N. W. 65); Smith v. Walker, 57 Mich. 456 (22 N. W. 267, 24 N. W. 830, 26 N. W. 783); Hall v. Waywe Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 395 (69 N. W. 643); Goldman v. Manistee Circuit Judge, 155 Mich. 47 (118 N. W. 600). We are referred to no authority to the contrary.

The order appealed from is reversed and set aside, with costs of this appeal to appellants, and the record remanded to the circuit court.

Bird, Hooker, Moore, and McAlvay, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.W. 311, 164 Mich. 688, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodmansee-v-ann-arbor-brick-co-mich-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack