¶1An order to show cause is denied. Mandamus is not a proper remedy to review an appealable order in a chancery case; nor is their regularity of the appointment of a receiver under a judgment creditor’s bill any *609reason for the defendants objecting to an examination concerning their property and effects. Howard v. Palmer, Walk. Ch. 391.
97 Mich. 608
Thomas v. Gartner
Decided January 18, 1893
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1893-01-18
Mandamus. Relators, the defendants in a judgment creditor’s bill, applied for mandamus to'compel the respondents to vacate orders appointing a receiver, and requiring them to appear before a circuit court commissioner for examination. For a full statement .of facts, see Dutton v. Thomas, 97 Mich. 93.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1906
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1893-01-18
View the full empirical analysis of this case →