TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John J. Bagley & Co. v. Scudder

John J. Bagley & Co. (A Corporation) v. John Scudder and Barbara Scudder

John J. Bagley & Co. v. Scudder, 33 N.W. 47 (Mich. 1887)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 5, 1887
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
33 N.W. 4766 Mich. 971887 Mich. LEXIS 454
Disposition
Order affirmed.
Headnotes
Judgment creditor's bill — Appointment of receiver — Contempt. A circuit judge has broad discretion in the appointment of a receiver on a bill filed by creditors where an execution has been returned unsatisfied, and such order will not be reviewed on an appeal from an order adjudging the debtor guilty of contempt in not assigning to such receiver.
Summary
Appeal from Wayne. (Jennison, J.) Appeal from order adjudging a debtor guilty of contempt in not assigning to a receiver.- The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

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

CAMPBELL, C. J.

^Respondent John Scudder appeals from an order holding him in contempt for not assigning to a receiver in a creditors’ bill. The receiver qualified March 10, 1886. After various delays, the circuit court for the county of Wayne, on October 27, made an order, after argument, that defendant assign. On the twenty-third of November an order was made to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in not assigning. No sufficient cause being shown, he was so adjudged on the twenty-seventh of January, 1881.

Nothing is claimed in support of the appeal beyond certain alleged irregularities. We have not discovered anything of consequence; but we cannot review in this way the appointment of a receiver. If the court had granted the order with *98 out jurisdiction, the matter might have been brought here, perhaps, for correction. But defendant has been heard sufficiently in the cause in all its stages, and the appointment of a receiver was correct under the statute, which gives the judge broad discretion where an execution had been returned unsatisfied. We could not disturb it if so disposed, and we see no reason for doing so.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1910: 11923: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carr v. District Court126 N.W. 791 (Iowa 1910)
  2. Murray v. Miller121 S.E. 113 (Ga. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Murray v. Miller121 S.E. 113 (Ga. 1923)
  2. Carr v. District Court126 N.W. 791 (Iowa 1910)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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