Holding Corp. v. Mortgage Cont. Co.
Liquidating Holding Corp. v. Mortgage Contract Co.
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from taxation of costs and involves an item of $631.56, premium on an appeal bond, given to stay proceedings and to pay the judgment if not reversed.
The judgment was reversed and a new trial granted, and plaintiff contends that, under our holding in Caswell v. Stearns , 259 Mich. 445 , the premium on the bond cannot be taxed as costs. In the Caswell Case no execution could have issued on the *Page 396 judgment, and the only stay was against certifying the judgment to the probate court. Such is not this case. The rule applied in Behr v. Baker , 257 Mich. 487 , governs, and the taxation by the clerk is affirmed, with costs to defendant.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(court may not expand duty to pay statutory interest beyond the limits of the statute)
-
(a person who is not a party to a judgment to pay interest is not liable for that interest)
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.