Boehmer v. Herling

2 Citing cases

  1. Mooney v. Arends

    No. 302967 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2012)

    When a judgment creditor files an action to reach assets belonging to the judgment debtor, the debtor is precluded from collaterally attacking the original judgment. Boehmer v Herling, 248 Mich 380, 382; 227 NW 755 (1929). An error that may be alleged in a direct appeal may not be challenged in a collateral attack.

  2. Auch v. Washtenaw County Sheriff

    286 N.W. 214 (Mich. 1939)   Cited 5 times

    Defendant submits for the first time in this court the theory that plaintiff's showing of title is insufficient because the testimony of Victor Berkich indicates the chattels covered by the mortgage were owned jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Berkich, and since Mrs. Berkich did not sign the mortgage, it is void as to her. Not having made such a claim in the trial court, it is too late here for defendant to raise this question. Nagle Engine Boiler Works v. M. Mitshkun Co., 233 Mich. 561; Boehmer v. Herling, 248 Mich. 380; City of Kalamazoo v. Perrin, 194 Mich. 484; Willox v. Townsend, 245 Mich. 632; Ketchell v. Keene, 171 Mich. 108; Briggs v. City of Grand Rapids, 261 Mich. 11; Vigo American Clay Co. v. L. C. Monroe Co., 260 Mich. 462; Rodal v. Crawford, 272 Mich. 99. The decision of the trial court that the mortgage offered by the plaintiff was a valid instrument given for a good and valuable consideration and that there was no fraud committed in connection therewith," and that Auch's residence was in Saline township, is adequately supported by the facts.