TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ideal Furnace Co. v. International Molders' Union of North America

IDEAL FURNACE CO. v. INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA. APPEAL OF MURRAY

Ideal Furnace Co. v. Int'l Molders' Union of North Am., 169 N.W. 946 (Mich. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 27, 1918
Docket
No. 96
Citations
169 N.W. 946204 Mich. 3111918 Mich. LEXIS 677
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Headnotes
1. Appeal and Error — Moot Case. Where defendant was adjudged guilty of contempt and fined, which he paid, there is nothing before this court for determination, on appeal, defendant having by his own act discharged the order. 2. Same — Jurisdiction—Dismissal. This court should, of its own motion, decline to consider cases it has not the power to determine. 3. Costs — Dismissal on Court’s Motion — Jurisdiction. Costs will not be awarded to appellee, on dismissal on court’s own motion, where no motion was made to dismiss from appellate court for want of jurisdiction.
Summary
Appeal from Monroe; Gilday, J. Bill by the Ideal Furnace Company against the International Molders’ Union of North America, Andrew Murray and others for an injunction. Andrew Murray was adjudged guilty of contempt of court and fined $10 which was paid and an appeal perfected from said order.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

On April 6, 1917, defendant Andrew Murray was adjudged guilty of contempt of court and fined $10 which was then paid. Later he filed claim of appeal and perfected the same. After the submission of the case in this court we requested briefs from counsel upon the right of the defendant to appeal from the order which had been- satisfied, and upon the power of the court to hear and determine the case. Such briefs have been filed. They have been read with care and all authorities cited have been examined. We are convinced that upon this record the questions are purely academic; that no real and substantial controversy is before us; that the order of the court below haying been satisfied and the fine paid no relief can be now granted appellant. The defendant by his own act has discharged the order entered by the court below. There is nothing before us for determination People v. Leavitt, 41 Mich. 470 ; Powell v. People, 47 Mich. 108 ; City of Ishpeming v. Maroney, 49 Mich. 226 ; State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108 ( 45 Am. St. Rep. 270 , 37 Pac. 992 ); Washington v. Cleland, 49 Or. 12 ( 124 Am. St. Rep. 1013 , 88 Pac. 305 ); Town of Batesburg v. Mitchell, 58 S. C. 564 ( 37 S. E. 36 ); 3 C. J. p. *313 358 et seq. This court should, of its own motion, decline to consider cases it has not the power to determine. J. F. Hartz Co. v. Lukaszcewski, 200 Mich. 230 ; Bolton v. Cummings, 200 Mich. 234 ; Miller v. Johnson, 201 Mich. 535 . The appeal will be dismissed but without costs. Maxfield v. Freeman, 39 Mich. 64 ; First Nat. Bank of Pt. Huron v. Mellen, 45 Mich. 413 .

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 31922: 11923: 11926: 11936: 11939: 11940: 11947: 11957: 11968: 21970: 11996: 11999: 22010: 22017: 419202026peak 2017 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Richmond782 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. 2010)
  2. In re MCI Telecommunications Complaint596 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 1999)
  3. Ameritech Michigan v. Public Service Commission460 Mich. 396 (1999)
  4. Becker v. Halliday554 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)
  5. Robertson v. Henderson179 P.2d 742 (Or. 1947)
  6. ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY488 Mich. 69 (2010) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Kevin Logan v. Charter Township of West BloomfieldNo. 330393 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017)
  2. Kevin Logan v. Charter Township of West BloomfieldNo. 330393 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017)
  3. Epicurean Developments LLC v. Summit TownshipNo. 334355 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017)
  4. Epicurean Developments LLC v. Summit TownshipNo. 334355 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017)
  5. ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY488 Mich. 69 (2010) · Dissent
  6. People v. Richmond782 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. 2010)

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 10

DepthCaseCited by
Washington v. Cleland, 88 P. 305 (Or. 1907) 20
State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108 (1894) 23
People v. Leavitt, 2 N.W. 812 (Mich. 1879) 23
J. F. Hartz Co. v. Lukaszcewski, 167 N.W. 18 (Mich. 1918) 15
Bolton v. Cummings, 167 N.W. 19 (Mich. 1918) 13
City of Ishpeming v. Maroney, 13 N.W. 527 (Mich. 1882) 10
Miller v. Johnson, 167 N.W. 834 (Mich. 1918) 9
Maxfield v. Freeman, 39 Mich. 64 (1878) 8
Powell v. People, 10 N.W. 129 (Mich. 1881) 6
First Nat'l Bank v. Mellen, 8 N.W. 80 (Mich. 1881) 4

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