Case Name: GOODELL v. PROVIDENT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1942-06-01
Citations: 129 F.2d 468
Docket Number: No. 9058
Parties: GOODELL v. PROVIDENT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA.
Judges: Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 129
Pages: 468–468

Head Matter:
GOODELL v. PROVIDENT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA.
No. 9058.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 1, 1942.
Bloom & Bloom, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, of Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;
And it appearing that the only contested issue was whether or not notice of foreclosure sale had been posted pursuant to Section 27.1223, Mich.Stat.Ann. (§ 14427, Comp.Laws 1929) upon the premises involved, and that an affidavit setting forth the time, manner and place of posting the copy of the notice had been executed and recorded as authorized by Sections 27.1235-27.1237, Mich. Stat.Ann. (§§ 14439-14441, Comp.Laws 1929);
And it appearing that the District Court found as a fact, upon substantial evidence, that a copy of the notice of the foreclosure sale was posted in a conspicuous place on the premises described and that this constituted a proper posting in accordance with Michigan statutes, and that no defect was shown in connection with the foreclosure proceedings:
It is ordered that the judgment and decree appealed from be and it hereby is affirmed.