Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Mich. 415

Clark v. Raymond

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1873

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1873-01-15

This was a proceeding under chapter 215 of the Compiled■ Laws of 1871, to enforce an alleged lien for materials and' labor, used and expended about the building of a wharf,' etc. The proceedings were carried on in the circuit in-analogy to proceedings in chancery. An order in the form of a decree was entered, sustaining the lien. From this order or decree the respondent took an appeal in' the form of an appeal in chancery.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1914

4 state decisions

2018731880189019001910decided

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 →

The Court

¶1held that under the statute, as at present constituted, no appeal would lie from such proceedings, and that they had no jurisdiction to hear the cause.

¶2The statute makes no provision for bringing the proceedings into this court for review; and the fact that they are instituted by petition to the circuit court in chancery, and are entitled as in chancery, and carried on somewhat in analogy to chancery proceedings, does not, of itself, authorize a chancery appeal. The inherent nature of the proceedings differs widely from a chancery cause. They are of a ' summary character, and may proceed before the court or before the circuit judge at chambers, either in term or in vacation, and are in many other particulars sui generis. Provision is made for tho

¶3intervention of other creditors having like liens; and each creditor may contest the claim of every other, and the court is required, in a summary manner, to determine the respective rights of each. No means is provided for preserving the testimony, or settling a case to embody it. A court of equity has no apt machinery for handling a case-, of such an anomalous character. Without further legislation there seems to be no way in which a review of such proceedings in an appellate court, can be appropriately entertained.

¶4Appeal dismissed accordingly.

/26/mich/415 · .json · Public domain