Bissell v. Durfee
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus. claimed that Act 179 of 18S5, purported by its title to relate only to official bonds, and could not therefore cover those of an executor: see Underwood v. MeDuffee 15 Mich. 366 ; Shurbun v. Hooper 40 Mich. 505 ; Throopv. La/ngdon id. 6S2; Spencer v. Perry 18 Mich. 399.
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Relator applies for a mandamus to compel the probate judge to accept an executor’s bond which the judge states he would feel bound to accept as sufficient were it not for statute No. 179 (page 244 of the Laws of 1885), which it is claimed imposes new conditions upon such instruments. That statute is entitled “An act to provide that all sureties upon official bonds shall make justification under oath of their pecuniary responsibility.”
The body of this statute is made broad enough by its terms to apply to every kind of bonds which are required to be approved by any court or officer, and would…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Continental Motors Corp. v. Township of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
- In re HauckMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Grosvenor v. DuffyMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Kruutari v. HagenyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1948
- Slotemaker v. International Fruit & Produce Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.