TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hoffman v. Security Trust Co.

Hoffman v. Security Trust Co. of Detroit.

Hoffman v. Sec. Trust Co., 239 N.W. 508 (Mich. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 1, 1931
Docket
No. Calendar 35,770
Judges
Fead, Butzel, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North
Citations
239 N.W. 508256 Mich. 3831931 Mich. LEXIS 1098

Opinion of the Court — Fead

Fead, J.

Decree was entered February 14, 1931, and copy served on appellants’ counsel. March 6th, *385 the 20th day after decree, preliminary notice of appeal was filed but service of a copy of it was not made on appellees until .March 11th, in violation of Michigan Court Rule No. 61. Appellees refused to take service because it was not seasonably made, and, on March 11th, in circuit court, moved to dismiss the appeal. Order granting the'motion was entered March 16th. On March 26th, appellants moved to vacate the order of March 16th, and March 31st the motion was denied. This is appeal,- in the nature of mandamus, from the latter order.

The case involves both practice and jurisdiction on appeal.

An appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within the required time. Michigan Court Rules Nos. 56 and 57. Both the act and time of filing are jurisdictional. Default in either destroys the right to appeal and leaves appellant remediless by way of appeal except upon special leave of the appellate court. Michigan Court Rule No. 57, § 2.

The other acts necessary to complete an appeal are not jurisdictional. Michigan Court Rule No. 56. But they and the time for their performance are mandatory, in that they áre requisites of an appeal and the acts may be performed after the prescribed time only on special leave of court and upon such just terms as it may impose (Michigan Court Rule No. 58, § 2), except, of course, as to such acts as appellee may and shall waive.

Appellants ’ failure to do such other acts necessary to complete an appeal prima facie entitles appellee to dismissal of appeal on motion. However, the court has discretion to permit appellant to do such acts, on motion of appellant or on hearing of motion to dismiss. Michigan Court Rule No. 58, § 2. Appellant has the burden of showing such excuse for der fault as will move judicial discretion in his behalf.

*386 Appellants had transcript of testimony before decree, but they filed preliminary notice of appeal. Appellees contend full notice of appeal was required under Michigan Court Rule No. 59, § 2. It is appellant’s desire to examine the testimony and proceedings for errors based thereon, not his possession of a transcript, which justifies a preliminary notice of appeal. Where the evidence is to be incorporated in the record, either preliminary or full notice of appeal may be filed in the first instance.

When the appeal is perfected by seasonable filing of the notice of appeal, the jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches and the trial court has no authority to dismiss the appeal.

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co.

v. Chambers, 89 Mich. 5; 4 C. J. p. 562. In the instant case, it appears that jurisdiction of the circuit court was conceded at the hearing on motion to dismiss, but such jurisdiction can not be conferred by stipulation.

As the case stands, appellants have perfected an appeal by filing notice thereof, but all proceedings subsequent thereto are without force. To perform the other necessary acts, appellants must have leave of court. Michigan Court Rule No. 58, § 2.

In view of the uncertainty which prevails in the profession as to the procedure, we pass all technical questions of the scope of the present review and set aside the order dismissing appeal and subsequent order, without prejudice to the parties to take such steps as they may be advised, and without costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and North, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1932: 31935: 11938: 21939: 11947: 11954: 11966: 11968: 119322026peak 1932 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Detroit v. Michigan Public Utilities Commission286 N.W. 368 (Mich. 1939)
  2. Mondou v. Lincoln Mutual Casualty Co.278 N.W. 94 (Mich. 1938) · Dissent
  3. Berry v. Bruce27 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 1947)
  4. Exo v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange244 N.W. 241 (Mich. 1932)
  5. Shane v. Hackney67 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. 1954)
  6. Orloff v. Morehead Manfg. Co.262 N.W. 736 (Mich. 1935)

Most recent

  1. People v. Kennedy165 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
  2. Millman Brothers, Inc. v. City of Detroit139 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966)
  3. Shane v. Hackney67 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. 1954)
  4. Berry v. Bruce27 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 1947)
  5. City of Detroit v. Michigan Public Utilities Commission286 N.W. 368 (Mich. 1939)
  6. Andres v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge283 N.W. 630 (Mich. 1938)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ry. Co. v. Chambers, 50 N.W. 741 (Mich. 1891) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list