Riverside Iron Works v. Hosmer
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. Argued January 30, 1894. Granted April 17, 1894. Relator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to vacate an order allowing the Rundle-Spence Manufacturing Company and other creditors of the Detroit Plumbers’ Supply Company to intervene, and answer and file a cross-bill resisting the petition of the relator, filed under How.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. Argued January 30, 1894. Granted April 17, 1894. Relator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to vacate an order allowing the Rundle-Spence Manufacturing Company and other creditors of the Detroit Plumbers’ Supply Company to intervene, and answer and file a cross-bill resisting the petition of the relator, filed under How. Stat. § 8153, upon the return of execution unsatisfied, for the sequestration of the stock and property of the corporation, and the appointment of a receiver of the same. The additional facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.
Section 8153 of the statutes gives to *125a creditor having a judgment, execution upon which has been returned unsatisfied, the right to have a sequestration of the effects of the corporation. It does not even give his judgment precedence. The court, upon sequestration, appoints a receiver, who distributes the avails between the creditors. IJnder the federal bankruptcy law, other creditors had a right to intervene, not' for the purpose of resisting the prayer of the original petitioning creditor, but to prevent a collusive adjustment between the petitioning creditor and the alleged bankrupt, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Judson v. Rossie Galena Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. George T. Smith Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898