Riopelle v. Doellner
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal in Chancery from Wayne Circuit. A demurrer having been interposed to the original bill, was sustained, and an amended bill filed, which was also demurred to, and demurrer sustained, and the bill dismissed. From this decree complainant appealed, and had returned as the record, the amended bill and demurrer to it, but not the original bill.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
held that the original bill was part of the record, and although it is not easy to see what bearing it can have on the questions raised by the appeal, still the defendants are entitled under our statute, to have the whole record sent up, if they insist upon it.
Ordered accordingly.
This was a bill for a discovery and for an injunction to restrain proceedings in a suit brought by Doellner as plaintiff against Riopelle, on the law side .of the Wayne circuit court, upon a promissory note made by Riopelle, by A. Kraushaar as his attorney in fact, in favor of Doellner.
The bill charged that…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McBride v. CicotteMichigan Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by12 opinions
- Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Peninsular Land, Transportation & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1891
- Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphs de Paris a New YorkU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1885
- Chapman v. LeavertonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Sweeny v. WilliamsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1883
- Shelden v. WalbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.