Murphy v. Riggs
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.
Plaintiffs appealed from a decree dismissing their bill of complaint for want of averments showing equity should interpose and exert its injunctive power. They stand upon their bill and insist it demands answer and triable issues. We must accept the allegations in the bill as true, if well pleaded, and may not turn to the answer of defendant or the affidavits in support of the special motion to dismiss, so far as they raise issues of fact. Defendant is an attorney at law, and for a time was so retained and employed by plaintiffs. In November, 1922, the relation was severed by substitution of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Michel v. McKennaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Glover v. LibmanDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1983
- Janesick v. OsbonMichigan Supreme Court · 1943