Scott v. Chambers
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus to vacate an order punishing relators for contempt, and to restrain further steps to enforce an injunction granted against'them. The facts are stated in the opinion, and summarized in head-note 3.
1Opinion of the Court
Campbe C. J.
On the second day of June, 1886, respondent, purporting to act in a case called a “supplemental suit,” in which Andrew McLellan, receiver of Vincent J. Scott, is complainant, and relators and certain others; including Theodore IT. Eaton,Theodore H. Eaton, Jr., and Alfred ■ P. Toulmin, were defendants, made an order for the punishment of relators for violating ah injunction in another cause, wherein Toulmin and the Eatons were complainants, *535•which undertook to restrain relators from, disposing of certain United States bonds. This order required relators to pay into court $6,100…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co. v. Detroit, Lansing & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Root v. PotterMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by11 opinions
- Carnahan v. CarnahanMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Dempsey v. PforzheimerMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Loy v. Loy.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1949
- Curtis v. DinneenSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1886
- Sweetzer v. HigbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.