People's Savings Bank v. Eberts

The People's Savings Bank v. William H. Eberts, John M. Eberts, and Lena Howard

People's Sav. Bank v. Eberts, 55 N.W. 996 (Mich. 1893)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 25, 1893
Judges: Grant, Other
Citations: 55 N.W. 99696 Mich. 3961893 Mich. LEXIS 776
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 4

Headnotes

Res judicata. Where in a suit planted upon the theory that the complainant’s title to the land in controversy is valid, and that the title claimed by defendant is void, and creates a cloud upon that of the complainant, the reverse of said claim is found by the court, and a decree is made accordingly, that question is res judicata in an action of ejectment brought by the defendant against the complainant’s grantees, who purchased the land after the making of said decree.

Summary

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Ejectment. Defendants bring error. 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 — Grant

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

Grant, J.

The issues in this case are the same as those in Lafferty v. People’s Savings Bank, 76 Mich. 35 . The defendants in this case are the grantees of Martha Lafferty, the complainant in that suit, and are therefore her privies. After that case was decided, the plaintiff brought this action of ejectment against the defendants, who were in possession. In the present case each relies upon the same conveyances, the same proceedings, and the same facts as were those in the former suit. The issues and facts will be found fully stated in that opinion, and it is unnecessary to restate them now. That suit was planted upon the theory that Martha Lafferty had a good and valid title to the land in controversy, and that the title claimed by the People’s Savings Bank, obtained under a sale authorized by the probate court, was void, and created a cloud upon her title. The title of the bank was there held valid, and Martha Lafferty’s alleged title was held to constitute a cloud upon the title of the bank. The question is therefore res judicata. It is the well-settled rule that courts will not review former decisions made by the same court in the same cause, and on the same • facts. Hickox v. Railway Co., 94 Mich. 237 , and authorities there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Allen v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.232 N.W.2d 302 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
Pierce v. Riley264 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
John A. Tolman Co. v. Reed72 N.W. 1104 (Mich. 1897)
Morley v. University of Detroit256 N.W. 861 (Mich. 1934) · Dissent

Most recent

Pierce v. Riley264 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
Allen v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.232 N.W.2d 302 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
Morley v. University of Detroit256 N.W. 861 (Mich. 1934) · Dissent
John A. Tolman Co. v. Reed72 N.W. 1104 (Mich. 1897)

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Lafferty v. People's Sav. Bank, 43 N.W. 34 (Mich. 1889)	17
	Hickox v. Chicago & Canada Southern Ry. Co., 53 N.W. 1105 (Mich. 1892)	8

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list