is controlled by the case of Estey v. Building & Loan
The decree in the court below provides for a certain time within which to redeem, and also provides for a foreclosure sale in case of failure of complainant to do so. Fosdick v. Van Husan, 21 Mich. 567; Goodenow v. Curtis, 33 Mich. 505, 510; Huyck v. Graham, 82 Mich. 353, 357 (46 N. W. 781); O'Connor v. Keenan, 132 Mich. 646, 650 (94 N. W. 186). The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed, with costs to appellees.
BROOKE, C. J., and MCALVAY, STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ., concurred.
ABANDONMENT-See CONTRACTS (4); HIGHWAYS AND STREETS
(1, 2).
ABATEMENT-See GARNISHMENT (4); NUISANCE.
ABUSE OF PROCESS-See GARNISHMENT (1).
ACCEPTANCE-See SALES (4, 5, 7, 8).
ACCIDENT INSURANCE-See INSURANCE (2-4).
ACCOUNTING.
1. Evidence in a suit for an accounting considered and held,
to sustain the decree of the circuit court applying the
rules applicable to the relation of attorney and client
and of trustee and beneficiary. Broadwell v. Field, 333.
2. Where complainant contracted with the defendants for
transportation by water of a quantity of cedar posts and
other lumber, and as an advancement on the purchase
price complainant paid a portion of the agreed freight
for one cargo, also making additional advancements upon
account for expenses of loading, etc., and it appeared
that the defendants shipped the cargo of posts which
they delivered at complainant's dock on board boat and
made a claim for an excessive charge of freight, threat-
ening to take away the boat, which was in an unsea-
worthy condition at the time, and complainant instituted
an action of replevin to prevent defendants from carry-
ing out their threat, and that on the morning after the
execution of the writ the barge sunk in the river at its
moorings, that, as claimed by complainant but contra-
dicted by defendant, the parties made a settlement at
this stage of the proceedings by complainants' paying to
defendants the sum of one hundred dollars in excess of
the amount of freight which it was under obligation to
pay, and actually made such settlement; that defendants
refused to execute the discontinuance of its suit in re-
plevin and that defendants claimed a further balance due
and proposed to proceed to the trial of the issue in that
cause; held, that a bill for an accounting and to enjoin
the action at law cannot be maintained by the complain-
ant; that under the provisions of 3 Comp. Laws,
§§ 10402, 10403 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] §§ 13116, 13117),
an issue might be framed and the question of settlement
determined in the action of replevin. See, also, 3 Comp.
Laws, § 10090 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 12742). Huebel
Co. v. MacKinnon, 617.
3. A suggestion is a statement formally entered on the record
of some fact or circumstance material to the further
proceedings in the case which cannot be regularly
pleaded. Id. 618.
See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
ACTION-See CONTRACTS (6, 7); PLEADING (5, 7).
ACTION AT LAW-See QUIETING TITLE.
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW-See ACCOUNTING (2); INJUNC-
TION (1); NUISANCE; QUIETING TITLE.
ADVERSE INTERESTS-See HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Premises occupied as a homestead by decedent, his wife
and family for over 30 years, became the property of
the persons in occupancy by adverse possession, and the
widow and children were not estopped from claiming
their homestead right by a land contract executed by the
husband during his lifetime, recognizing defendant's
superior title. Carlson v. Land & Lumber Co., 212.
See HIGHWAYS AND STREETS (2).
AFFIDAVITS-See CERTIORARI (1, 2); CONTRACTS (6); CRIMINAL
LAW (3); EVIDENCE (4); TRIAL (5).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES-See DIVORCE (4).
AGENCY-See PRINCIPAL And Agent.
ALIBI-See CRIMINAL Law (2).
ALIMONY-See DIVORCE (1, 3).
ALLEGATION OF DUTY-See AUTOMOBILES (5).
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS—See SALES (15, 16).
AMENDMENTS.
In the trial of an action for personal injuries, plaintiff's
attorney, in order to meet the objection raised by de-
fendant that evidence of injuries sustained to plaintiff's
ear was not covered by the declaration, asked for and
procured leave to amend the pleading. Although defend-
ant claimed to be surprised and requested a continuance
the court permitted the amendment. The declaration as
originally framed charged that plaintiff was greatly
wounded and bruised in and about the head, face, body
and limbs and became sick, sore, lame and disordered.
Held, that as originally framed the declaration warranted
the admission of the proofs that plaintiff's hearing was
affected by the injury, also that no reversible error was
committed by permitting the amendment. Grogitzki v. Am-
bulance Co., 374.
See APPEAL AND ERROR (8); MORTGAGES (4); STREET RAIL
WAYS (4); TRIAL (1).
AMOUNT OF INTEREST-See USURY (2).
AMOUNT OF PAYMENT-See TAXATION (9-13).
AMUSEMENTS-See NEGLIGENCE (1).
ANIMALS-See MASTER AND SERVANT (21-25); MUNICIPAL COR-
PORATIONS (12, 14, 15).
ANTICIPATORY BREACH-See BROKERS (2); LANDLORD AND
TENANT (2).
1. On error from a verdict directed in favor of defendant, the
testimony must be considered in the light most favorable
to plaintiff's claim. Weitzel v. Railway, 7.
defendant's counsel that testimony
offered on plaintiff's direct examination relative to
former statements made upon a previous trial was incom-
petent, was not a sufficient ground for reversing the case
upon appeal where the real nature of the objection was
that plaintiff's counsel elicited the testimony by leading
questions and the ground of the objection was not stated
at that time. Duffiny v. Railway Co., 40.
3. In a cause heard upon stipulation of facts by the trial
court sitting without a jury, and to whose rulings no excep-
tions were taken nor points of law presented in pur-
suance of the practice required under Circuit Court Rule
26, nothing was gained for the purpose of review by the
presentation and denial of a motion for a new trial.
Kooman v. De Jonge, 292.
4. Under a stipulation of the facts by the parties, the ques-
tion whether they support the judgment is open to the
appellant if he properly assigns error: and in an action
on the money counts, the assignment of error to the effect
that the court erred in finding from the stipulated facts
that the defendants undertook in manner and form as
the plaintiff in his declaration charged, sufficiently pre-
sented the question for review upon error. Id. 293.
5. The Supreme Court, on error to the trial of an action at
law before the court sitting without a jury, will not re-
view assignments of error relating to the admission or
|