Case ID: mich_66/html/0097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CAMPBELL, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John J. Bagley & Co. (A Corporation) v. John Scudder and Barbara Scudder.
    
      Judgment creditor's bill — Appointment of receiver — Contempt.
    
      A circuit judge has broad discretion in the appointment of a receiver on a bill filed by creditors where an execution has been returned unsatisfied, and such order will not be reviewed on an appeal from an order adjudging the debtor guilty of contempt in not assigning to such receiver.
    Appeal from Wayne. (Jennison, J.)
    Argued April 28, 1881.
    Decided May 5, 1887.
    Appeal from order adjudging a debtor guilty of contempt in not assigning to a receiver.-
    Order affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Frederick W. Whiting, for complainant.
    
      Fdward A. Gott, for defendant John Scudder.
   CAMPBELL, C. J.

^Respondent John Scudder appeals from an order holding him in contempt for not assigning to a receiver in a creditors’ bill. The receiver qualified March 10, 1886. After various delays, the circuit court for the county of Wayne, on October 27, made an order, after argument, that defendant assign. On the twenty-third of November an order was made to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in not assigning. No sufficient cause being shown, he was so adjudged on the twenty-seventh of January, 1881.

Nothing is claimed in support of the appeal beyond certain alleged irregularities. We have not discovered anything of consequence; but we cannot review in this way the appointment of a receiver. If the court had granted the order without jurisdiction, the matter might have been brought here, perhaps, for correction. But defendant has been heard sufficiently in the cause in all its stages, and the appointment of a receiver was correct under the statute, which gives the judge broad discretion where an execution had been returned unsatisfied. We could not disturb it if so disposed, and we see no reason for doing so.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.