Van Norman v. Circuit Judge
Michigan Supreme Court
Mandamus to require respondent to vacate an injunction whereby the relator was restrained from proceeding with an action.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
This is a hearing on an order to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to require an order for an injunction to be vacated.
For an understanding of the case a reference is necessary to the main circumstances. In 1873 the relator’s husband, Arthur Van Norman, was a stockholder in the private corporation in Jackson known as the Central Car & Manufacturing Company, and held 917-2- shares of the capital stock, of the face value of $22,937.50. Sometime about the month of August, 1877,-said Arthur,Van Norman and one Iiiram Gay began negotiations with Luther Beecher for the occupation on special…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Turnbull v. PaysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Beck v. BurdettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Denton v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Howe v. StarkweatherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Fox v. WillisMichigan Supreme Court · 1849
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- City of Detroit v. HosmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Rhoades v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- City of Huron v. CampbellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Fowler v. DicksonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1909
- Joslyn v. St. Paul Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.