Raymond v. Hinkson
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Sanilac Circuit in Chancery. The bill in this cause was filed by an execution creditor, who had purchased lands at sheriff’s %ale, to avoid a deed alleged to have been executed to defraud creditors. A decree was rendered in favor of complainant. The facts are stated in the opinion. The want of the ad damnum clause, in the declaration, did not affect the validity of the judgment, as, if it was a defect, it is cured by judgment under the statute of Jeofails.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sanilac Circuit in Chancery. The bill in this cause was filed by an execution creditor, who had purchased lands at sheriff’s %ale, to avoid a deed alleged to have been executed to defraud creditors. A decree was rendered in favor of complainant. The facts are stated in the opinion. The want of the ad damnum clause, in the declaration, did not affect the validity of the judgment, as, if it was a defect, it is cured by judgment under the statute of Jeofails. The declaration could have been amended by supplying the defect at any time before judgment, and if so, the judgment would not…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.
The bill in this cause was filed by an execution creditor, who had purchased lands at sheriff’s sale, to avoid a deed alleged to have been executed to defraud creditors.
The suit on which execution issued was commenced by attachment. The declaration set forth no cause of action but a justice’s judgment, and did not contain any common counts nor any ad damnwm clause. The defendant, Samuel Hinkson, was personally served with the writ, but did not appear. The judgment sued on, with interest, was less than one hundred dollars, as set forth in the declaration, at the time of commencing…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Maxfield v. WilleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881