TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Storrs v. Wallace

James R. Storrs v. John Wallace, Eugene Wallace and Edward Leonard

Storrs v. Wallace, 19 N.W. 770 (Mich. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 11, 1884
Judges
Champlin, Other
Citations
19 N.W. 77054 Mich. 1121884 Mich. LEXIS 525
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
General demurrer — Multifariousness— Costs. A complaint for multifariousness was not considered in affirming an order overruling a general demurrer to a bill which in fact stated a case for equitable relief; the costs in the case were within the control of the trial court and could be adjusted on final decree.
Summary
Appeal from Shiawassee. (Newton, J.) Bill to clear title. Defendants Wallace appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Champlin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Champlin, J.

Defendants John and Eugene Wallace demurred to the bill of complaint filed by complainant in the court below to compel them to assign to complainant a certain mortgage called the Hughes mortgage, or in default pay him the amount of the mortgage, and to have the assignment to defendant Leonard of the same mortgage declared void, and to compel defendant Wallace to reconvey to complainant the interest in a certain twenty-nine acres of land which had been deeded by complainant to Franklin Scougale. The bill is quite lengthy, and sets forth in considerable detail the pleadings and proceedings of another suit between Storrs and his father as complainants, and Franklin Scougale and defendant John Wallace, which was determined in this Court, and is reported in 48 Mich. 387 . It is unnecessary to set forth the statements of the bill in this case. The relief prayed for is founded upon charges of fraudulent acts and conduct of the defendants connected with the transactions litigated in the former suit, and, so far as defendants are concerned, of acts which occurred after the decree in the court below, pronounced in the former suit, had been appealed to this Court, and while it was still pending here. The demurrer is for want of equity and multifariousness, and was overruled by the court below. We think the bill states a case for equitable relief, and we cannot see that the defendants will be particularly injured by the multifariousness complained of, as all costs in the case are within the control of the court, and can be adjusted upon the final decree.

We think the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, and the record remitted to the court below for further proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 11914: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carlton v. Hilliard64 Fla. 228 (1912)
  2. Bennett v. Clark148 N.W. 372 (Mich. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Bennett v. Clark148 N.W. 372 (Mich. 1914)
  2. Carlton v. Hilliard64 Fla. 228 (1912)

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
Storrs v. Scougale, 12 N.W. 502 (Mich. 1882) 22

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