From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Albert

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jan 31, 1936
264 N.W. 868 (Mich. 1936)

Opinion

Docket No. 77, Calendar No. 38,523.

Submitted October 15, 1935.

Decided January 31, 1936.

Appeal from Wayne; Van Zile (Donald), J., presiding. Submitted October 15, 1935. (Docket No. 77, Calendar No. 38,523.) Decided January 31, 1936.

Bill by Peter Patterson against Rose Albert to foreclose a mortgage. On petition for relief under mortgage moratorium act. From order denying relief, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lloyd L. Axford, William E. Tarsney, and Arthur Axford ( Ray Cashen, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Samuel H. Rubin ( Melba Levin-Rubin, of counsel), for defendant.


When this case was here in Patterson v. Albert, 267 Mich. 40, where the facts will sufficiently appear, the decree of the trial court was modified and the case remanded to amend the decree in accordance with the opinion of this court. Before the amended decree was entered by the trial court, defendant made an application for a moratorium. This application was denied, and defendant appeals.

See Act No. 98, Pub. Acts 1933, as amended. — REPORTER.

The trial court held under the facts it would not grant a moratorium. The granting of a moratorium is permissive, depending upon the discretion of the court, and not a matter of right. Ciotte v. Ullrich, 267 Mich. 136. We cannot find under the facts in this case the trial court abused his discretion.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, EDWARD M. SHARPE, and TOY, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Albert

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jan 31, 1936
264 N.W. 868 (Mich. 1936)
Case details for

Patterson v. Albert

Case Details

Full title:PATTERSON v. ALBERT

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Jan 31, 1936

Citations

264 N.W. 868 (Mich. 1936)
264 N.W. 868

Citing Cases

Steinberg v. Ford Motor Co.

The so-called best evidence rule, for very good reasons, has been limited in its application to documentary…

LaSalle Bank Midwest NA v. Abernathy

MRE 1002. Testimony as to the content of a document at issue should thus not be admitted when document itself…