TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Simmons v. Board of Supervisors

SIMMONS v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALCONA COUNTY

Simmons v. Bd. of Supervisors, 108 N.W. 282 (Mich. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 3, 1906
Docket
No. 141
Judges
Blair, Hooker, McAlvay, Montgomery, Ostrander
Citations
108 N.W. 282144 Mich. 5911906 Mich. LEXIS 1098
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
.Appeal and Error — Chancery Appeals — Orders Review able— Preliminary Injunction. No appeal lies from an order modifying a preliminary injunction, nor from an order refusing a motion to set the order of modification aside.
Summary
Appeal from Alcona; Connine, J. Bill by James Simmons and others against the board of supervisors of Alcona county and others to restrain the reconstruction of a county building. From an order modifying a preliminary injunction, and from an order denying a motion to set aside such order, complainants 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 — Montgomery

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

Montgomery, J.

The complainants filed a bill of complaint praying an injunction restraining the defendants from reconstructing a jail building. A preliminary injunction was issued in accordance with the prayer of the bill. On a motion for dissolution of the injunction filed by defendants, an order was made modifying the injunction so as to limit its scope to restraining the defendant to expending more than $500 per year in repairing the jail building. Oomplainants moved to set aside the order modifying the injunction. This motion was denied, and an appeal has been taken from both decisions.

An appeal does not lie from either order. Merchants’, etc., Bank v. Kent Circuit Judge, 43 Mich. 292 ; Boinay v. Coats, 17 Mich. 411 ; Spencer v. Stearns, 28 Mich. 463 ; Schuffert v. Grote, 83 Mich. 263 . This is of less consequence to the parties, as since the appeal was taken the legal questions involved have been considered *592 in Attorney General, ex rel. Gibson, v. Board of Sup’rs of Montcalm Co., 141 Mich. 590 .

The appeal will be dismissed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

McAlvay, Blair, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1917: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Freeman v. Mitchell164 N.W. 445 (Mich. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Freeman v. Mitchell164 N.W. 445 (Mich. 1917)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Merchants' & Mfrs.' Nat'l Bank v. Judge, 5 N.W. 627 (Mich. 1880) 25
Boinay v. Coats, 17 Mich. 411 (1868) 4
Spencer v. Stearns, 28 Mich. 463 (1874) 3
Attorney Gen. ex rel. Gibson v. Bd. of Supervisors, 141 Mich. 590 (1905) 3
Schuffert v. Grote, 47 N.W. 254 (Mich. 1890) 1

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