Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Mich. 64

Maxfield v. Freeman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1878

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1878-06-18

<p> Leave to file bill of review no ground for appeal. </p> <p>An order granting leave to file a bill of review, and made before any steps have been taken in execution of the decree, is not a final order from which an appeal lies.</p> <p>If an order finally disposes of any right it can be appealed from even though other proceedings are yet to be taken in the ease. For instance, an order setting aside a foreclosure sale after the report of sale is confirmed; or modifying a decree for alimony; or appointing a receiver, afid by putting him in possession, disposing of the legal rights of others. But an order opening a decree to a defense before any new rights have intervened is not final, nor is one that opens for review a decree for permanent alimony.</p> <p>The Supreme Court cannot take jurisdiction of chancery appeals not permitted by statute.</p> <p>Costs were not awarded to an appellee on dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction, where he had not objected on that ground.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-06-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1918

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

3018781880189019001910decided

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 →

Cooley,’ J.

¶1This is an appeal by one of tbe defendants from an order of the circuit court in chancery giving leave to the defendant Mickles to file a bill of review. The order granting leave was made before any steps had been taken in execution of the decree, and consequently before any new rights had been acquired.

¶2The statute permitting appeals to this court from the circuit courts in chancery, confines the privilege to those who may think themselves aggrieved by “the ■decree or final order” of any such courts. If the order permitting a bill of review to be filed is a “decree or final order,” we can take jurisdiction of this case; otherwise not.

¶3We have held in several cases that if an order finally disposed of any right, it might be appealed from, not*66withstanding the case vfas such that proceedings would afterwards be taken in the case. Thus, an order setting aside a sale in a foreclosure suit after the confirmation of report of sale may be appealed from: Bullard v. Green, 9 Mich., 222; Perkins v. Perkins, 16 Mich., 162. So may an order modifying a decree for alimony in a divorce case. Chandler v. Chandler, 24 Mich., 176. So may an order appointing a receiver where the order disposes of legal rights of others in order to put the receiver in possession. Lewis v. Campan, 14 Mich., 458. See People v. Jones, 33 Mich., 303.

¶4But an order opening a decree to a defense, before any new rights have intervened, is not a final order. Prentis v. Rice, 2 Doug. (Mich.), 296. Neither is one which opens for review a decree for permanent alimony in a divorce case. Perkins v. Perkins, 10 Mich., 425. Neither is the order now before us.

¶5The order for filing a bill of'review simply opens the controversy between the parties for further testimony, hearing and consideration. It is no more a final order than would be an order- opening a default, or permitting a new defense before decree, or bringing in a new party. It may embarrass and possibly wrong some one for the time being, but if so, we are powerless to prevent it. We can act only, in these cases, where the statute permits it; and here it is plain the power has been withheld.

¶6The appeal must be dismissed. As the appellee for some reason has seen fit not to object to the want of jurisdiction, we award no costs.

The other Justices concurred.
/39/mich/64 · .json · Public domain