Samaha v. Hamper Estate Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Reid v. Gooden

    276 N.W. 530 (Mich. 1937)   Cited 8 times

    In the case at bar the circuit court commissioner had jurisdiction of the subject; the parties were identical; a valid judgment was rendered and it was upon the merits and not appealed from by either party. In Samaha v. Hamper Estate Co., 247 Mich. 210, we held that a judgment of restitution by a circuit court commissioner in summary proceedings against a tenant for failure to pay rent was res judicata of questions properly and necessarily involved; and that the questions involved were that defendant was in possession of the premises (either actually or constructively) and that such possession was unlawful; and that plaintiff was lawfully entitled to possess the same. In the case at bar the principal question involved before the circuit court commissioner was the right to possession of the premises, and this depended in part upon whether or not there had been a modification of the contract and also whether there was any sum of money due plaintiff from defendants.

  2. Oppenheim v. National Surety Co.

    253 N.W. 204 (Mich. 1934)

    The effect of the judgment before the circuit court commissioner was that all defendants named therein were in possession unlawfully and that plaintiffs were entitled to repossess said premises. Samaha v. Hamper Estate Co., 247 Mich. 210 . After judgment before the circuit court commissioner, the appealing defendants had the right to appeal independent of any action that the Hamilton Real Estate Company might take or fail to take. The failure of the Hamilton Real Estate Company to appeal within the statutory period gave plaintiff the right to a writ of restitution against the Hamilton Real Estate Company.

  3. Hotelen v. Haberlen

    251 N.W. 331 (Mich. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    McGuffie v. Carter, 42 Mich. 497. The right of defendants here, plaintiffs in the summary proceeding, necessarily involved their then right of possession and the adjudication there on that point bars the claim of unlawful eviction upon which the suit at bar is planted. Samaha v. Hamper Estate Co., 247 Mich. 210. The case is remanded to the circuit court with direction to grant the motion to dismiss.