Zemon v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Zemon v. Wayne Circuit Judge

137 N.W. 210, 171 Mich. 589, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 667

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1912

DocketCalendar No. 25,208

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 N.W. 210 (Zemon v. Wayne Circuit Judge) 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

Zemon v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 137 N.W. 210, 171 Mich. 589, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 667 (Mich. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Brooke, J.

Upon the application of relators, respondent refused to appoint a receiver as prayed in a judgment creditors’ bill. Relators thereupon applied to this court for an order against respondent to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing him to set aside his order refusing to appoint a receiver and further directing him to appoint a receiver. The order to show cause issued, and the return is now before us.

We are met at the outset by the claim on the part of the respondent that mandamus is not the proper remedy. We are of opinion that respondent is correct in this contention. If the order in question is to be regarded as a final order, an appeal will lie. If not, the case may proceed to final decree in the court below, which decree may be reviewed by appeal. The attitude of the court upon the question of reviewing interlocutory orders by mandamus where there is another adequate remedy has frequently been made known. See Mardian v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 118 [590]*590Mich. 353 (76 N. W. 497), and cases cited; Tarsney v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 152 Mich. 641 (116 N. W. 465), and cases cited.

The writ is denied.

Moore, C. J.,- and Steere, McAlvay, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred. Blair, J., did not sit.

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

Brooke, J.

Upon the application of relators, respondent refused to appoint a receiver as prayed in a judgment creditors’ bill. Relators thereupon applied to this court for an order against respondent to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing him to set aside his order refusing to appoint a receiver and further directing him to appoint a receiver. The order to show cause issued, and the return is now before us.

We are met at the outset by the claim on the part of the respondent that mandamus is not the proper remedy. We are of opinion that respondent is correct in this contention. If the order in question is to be regarded as a final order, an appeal will lie. If not, the case may proceed to final decree in the court below, which decree may be reviewed by appeal. The attitude of the court upon the question of reviewing interlocutory orders by mandamus where there is another adequate remedy has frequently been made known. See Mardian v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 118 [590]*590Mich. 353 (76 N. W. 497), and cases cited; Tarsney v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 152 Mich. 641 (116 N. W. 465), and cases cited.

The writ is denied.

Moore, C. J.,- and Steere, McAlvay, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred. Blair, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 N.W. 210, 171 Mich. 589, 1912 Mich. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zemon-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack