Jenness v. Smith
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Lapeer. (Stickney, J.) Injunction bill to restrain suit in ejectment. Complainant appeals. No one need be made a party to a bill in equity whose interests cannot be affected by the decree : 1 Moulton’s Oh. PI. 98 ; 1 Dan. Ch. PI. 2S4; Powers’ Puterbaugh’s PI. & Pr. 37; Hillman v. Hillman 14 IIow. Pr. 459 ; Nexoboxdd v. Warrin 14 Abb. Pr. 85; Stockxoell v. Wager 30 How.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lapeer. (Stickney, J.) Injunction bill to restrain suit in ejectment. Complainant appeals. No one need be made a party to a bill in equity whose interests cannot be affected by the decree : 1 Moulton’s Oh. PI. 98 ; 1 Dan. Ch. PI. 2S4; Powers’ Puterbaugh’s PI. & Pr. 37; Hillman v. Hillman 14 IIow. Pr. 459 ; Nexoboxdd v. Warrin 14 Abb. Pr. 85; Stockxoell v. Wager 30 How. Pr. 271; a partner’s heirs hold partnership assets in trust for the firm: Merritt v. Dickey 3S Mich. 44; Moran v. Palmer 13 Mich. 367: Shanks v. Klein 104 H. S. 22 ; Dyer v. Clark 5 Met. 562; Andrews v. Broxon 21…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
The general purpose of the bill filed in this case is to compel Gertrude Smith to abandon certain ejectment suits for an undivided interest claimed by her as heir-at-law of Ilenry Fish, deceased, who was her father, and to give up her claim to these lands and some others.
The basis of the complainant’s equities is in substance that some of the lands in question were owned by the firm of A. & II. Fish, composed of Allen and Ilenry Fish, and some of them were owned by I. N. Jenness & Co., composed of complainant- and the two brothers Fish. The bill however does not point out what lands belonged…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Blakely v. SmockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Winslow v. JennessMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Giegling v. HelmboldMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
- Carpenter v. St. Clair Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Hunt v. StevensMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.