Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Mich. 344

Kellogg v. Putnam

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 1863

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1863-05-30

The bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants answered, setting up payment and other defenses. On May 23, 1862, the cause was brought, to a hearing, and the Court made an interlocutory decree, adjudging the whole amount of the mortgage to be owing to complainant, as claimed by his bill, and referring the cause to a Circuit Court Commissioner to report the amount.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-05-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1919

4 state decisions

10186318701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin Ch. J.:

¶1When an order or decree of the Circuit Court in Chancery is brought by appeal to this Court, we are required to examine all errors that may be assigned or found in such order or decree, and have power to reverse, affirm or alter such order or decree, and to make such other order or decree therein as shall be just. The error alleged in this case is at most but an irregularity, in no way, as we can see from the case, affecting the rights of the defendant, or the merits of the case. We are not inclined to entertain appeals for such causes. The true and proper course is for the party conceiving himself aggrieved to apply to the Court below for redress, upon *346showing that he has or will sustain injury, if the decree stands; and if aggrieved by the order of the Court upon such application, to appeal therefrom to this Court.

¶2We do not think that, without strong showing of cause, we should reverse a decree like that before us, where it is apparent that an absolute injury to the complainant, without any possible benefit to the defendant, would result. A reversal by this Court for a technical error would not be just. The decree must be affirmed.

Campbell J.:

¶3The case below having been noticed for final hearing, the Court referred it to a Master simply to make a computation on a basis established, by the order of reference, and in such a manner as to leave no room for the admission of testimony, or any other inquiry. It was a mere substitution of the Master for the Court in a matter of convenience involving no discretion, and the Court could have determined the result for itself, and could not have arrived at a different result with an ordinary knowledge of the rules of arithmetic. It is evident no reference in the ordinary sense was designed, and the order contemplated on its face an immediate report and decree on the computation. For this reason, I think no error was committed in giving an immediate decree. Had the reference involved any inquiry into facts, I think the statutory right to notice would have existed.

Manning and Christiancy J J. concurred in both opinions.

¶4Deoree affirmed.

/11/mich/344 · .json · Public domain