Moote v. Scriven
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal in Chancory from Clinton Circuit. This cause coming on to be heard'on appeal at the October term, 1875, of the supreme court, it appeared that the testimony was taken in open court, and that what was returned aud treated as the evidence in the cause was but a copy of the stenographer’s transcript of his notes of the evidence, which was merely filed in the cause and had been sent up with the return without being in any way authenticated as a case settled as required by…
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancory from Clinton Circuit. This cause coming on to be heard'on appeal at the October term, 1875, of the supreme court, it appeared that the testimony was taken in open court, and that what was returned aud treated as the evidence in the cause was but a copy of the stenographer’s transcript of his notes of the evidence, which was merely filed in the cause and had been sent up with the return without being in any way authenticated as a case settled as required by the statute. This the court declined to consider as the evidence. And no case having been settled, and the statutory…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell, J:
Moote filed his bill to redeem from Seri ven two parcels of land in Clinton county, one being the northeast quarter of section eighteen, and the other the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section seven, in town seven north, of range two west. The bill claims that Scriven’s interest is only a mortgage interest, aud offers to repay the amount due.
Tiie equities concerning the two lots are not identical, although asserted as arising under a single train of dealings. The court below" held that a right of redemption existed in the parcel of forty acres on section seven, but…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mickle v. MaxfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- People's Ice Co. v. The Steamer ExcelsiorMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Scriven v. MooteMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Tisman v. TismanMichigan Supreme Court · 1913